Nevada Supreme Court, 2022

Harper v. State, Dep'T Of Motor Vehicles

Harper v. State, Dep'T Of Motor Vehicles
Nevada Supreme Court · Decided August 10, 2022

Harper v. State, Dep'T Of Motor Vehicles

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

PHYLLIS HARPER, No. 84789 Petitioner, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, AUG 1 0 2022 Respondent.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original pro se petition for extraordinary relief seeks review of the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles' denial of petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing regarding reinstatement of her license.

Having reviewed the petition, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted. Petitioner has failed to include with her petition necessary documentation supporting her request for relief. NRAP 21(a)(4) (petitioner must provide all documents essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition); NRAP 21(c) (petitions for extraordinary writs shall to the extent practicable conform to NRAP 21(a)). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

L.A veR,64\ J.

Hardesty Stiglich

SUPREME COURT OF N EVADA in) I,N A c41, cc: Phyllis Harper Attorney General/Carson City

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA I947A

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA PHYLLIS HARPER, No. 84789 Petitioner, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, AUG 1 0 2022 Respondent. ORDER DENYING PETITION This original pro se petition for extraordinary relief seeks review of the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles' denial of petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing regarding reinstatement of her license. Having reviewed the petition, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted. Petitioner has failed to include with her petition necessary documentation supporting her request for relief. NRAP 21(a)(4) (petitioner must provide all documents essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition); NRAP 21(c) (petitions for extraordinary writs shall to the extent practicable conform to NRAP 21(a)). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED. L.A veR,64\ J. Hardesty Stiglich SUPREME COURT OF N EVADA in) I,N A c41, cc: Phyllis Harper Attorney General/Carson City SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 I947A

Opinion

Supreme Court OF Nevapa (O) 14074 oie IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA PHYLLIS HARPER, | No. 84789 Petitioner, vs. mt FP THE STATE OF NEVADA Fe iL iE CG AUG 10 2022 DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent. | ORDER DENYING PETITION This original pro se petition for extraordinary relief seeks review of the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles’ denial of petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing regarding reinstatement of her license. Having reviewed the petition, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted. Petitioner has failed to include with her petition necessary documentation supporting her request for relief. NRAP 21(a)(4) (petitioner must provide all documents essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition); NRAP 21(c) (petitions for extraordinary writs shall to the extent practicable conform to NRAP 21(a)}. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED. Parraguirre Mes baal, iJ. Adorned J. Hardesty Stiglich 22-258 SupREME Court OF Nevapa (OV Nata ai cc: Phyllis Harper Attorney General/Carson City

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.