Whitehead v. Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, 110 Nev. 128

869 P.2d 795 (1994) · Supreme Court of Nevada · February 18, 1994 · No. No. 24598

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court addresses its authority to review interlocutory actions of the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline through extraordinary writ proceedings. The opinion explains the constitutional and procedural bases for the court’s oversight of the Commission, including in camera review of Commission records, and discusses the jurisdiction-to-determine-jurisdiction doctrine and potential contempt for disobeying court orders.

Holdings

  1. The Supreme Court of Nevada has authority to entertain an interlocutory petition for an extraordinary writ challenging alleged excesses of jurisdiction by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline.
  2. While determining its own jurisdiction, the Supreme Court may issue and enforce ancillary orders, including stays and orders requiring in camera production of records; parties may not unilaterally disregard those orders as void.
  3. The Commission may discipline judicial conduct only under substantive rules established by constitutionally authorized authority and must follow the procedures promulgated by the Supreme Court; it may not define misconduct or its own procedures ad hoc.
  4. The motions for reconsideration and a stay of the October 4, 1993 in camera inspection order, and the request for oral argument, are denied.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Supreme Court of Nevada has authority to entertain an interlocutory petition for prohibition or mandamus challenging alleged excesses of jurisdiction by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline.
  2. Whether the Supreme Court may issue and enforce ancillary orders, including stays and orders for in camera inspection, while determining its own jurisdiction.
  3. Whether the Commission on Judicial Discipline is subject to interlocutory review by extraordinary writ and to the Supreme Court's constitutional rules governing its jurisdiction, procedures, and confidentiality.
  4. Whether the motions for reconsideration, a stay, and oral argument should be granted.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (25)

  • Donrey of Nevada v. Bradshaw, 106 Nev. 630, 798 P.2d 144 (1990)(followed)
  • Hickey v. District Court, 105 Nev. 729, 782 P.2d 1336 (1989)(followed)
  • Nicklo v. Peter Pan Playskool, 97 Nev. 73, 624 P.2d 22 (1981)(followed)
  • United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 (1947)(followed)
  • Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181 (1922)(followed)
  • Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967)(followed)
  • Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969)(distinguished)
  • United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530 (1971)(followed)
  • Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449 (1975)(followed)
  • Ex parte George, 371 U.S. 72 (1962)(distinguished)

Showing top 10 of 25.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…