Ormound v. Sheriff, Clark County
Nevada Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
The sole question’ before us on this appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is whether the district court improperly granted a continuance of the preliminary examination due to the absence of the prosecuting witness. We agree with the appellant’s contention that the continuance was improperly granted.
Our prior decisions have established that where a legal means of compelling the attendance of a witness is available, that method must be utilized before the good cause requirement of DCR 21 is met. See Salas v. Sheriff, 91 Nev. 802, 543 P.2d 1343 (1975). Here,…
3Cases cited4 opinions
- Maes v. Sheriff, Clark CountyNevada Supreme Court · 1970
- State v. KimHawaii Supreme Court · 1974
- Brooks v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1977
- Salas v. Sheriff, Clark CountyNevada Supreme Court · 1975
4Cited by7 opinions
- People v. MastersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Sheriff v. TerpstraNevada Supreme Court · 1995
- Sheriff, Clark County v. SimpsonNevada Supreme Court · 1993
- Joseph John H. v. State of NevadaNevada Supreme Court · 1997
- Sheriff v. SmithNevada Supreme Court · 1980
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.