adequate remedy at law by way of an appeal from the district court's denial of their petition. See NRS 34.120 (authorizing an appeal to this court from an order of the district court resolving a petition for a writ of review); NRS 34.170 (stating that mandamus will issue "where there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law"); see also NRAP 3A(b)(1).

Moreover, we have "stated that the inquiry upon a petition for a writ of certiorari [writ of review] is limited to whether the inferior tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction," and "[i]f it is determined that the act complained of was within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, our inquiry stops even if the decision or order was incorrect." Goicoechea u.

Fourth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289, 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980).

Here, the district court acted within its jurisdiction by considering the petition for a writ of review or, in the alternative, writ of prohibition. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6. Therefore, we may not inquire into the correctness of the district court's action upon a petition for a writ of review.

Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

J.

J.

Gibbons

Pideutiy J.

Pickering

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A carp cc: Hon. Nancy L. Porter, District Judge Elko County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Elko County District Attorney Elko County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I947A Cep