Harmful Error

This is the seventh in a series of posts looking at proposed changes to the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Nevada Supreme Court will hear public comment on October 6. The Court welcomes written comments about the proposed amendments.

Previous posts on this topic:
Proposed changes to NRAP 1, 2 and 3
Proposed changes to NRAP 3A, 3B and 3C
Proposed changes to NRAP 3D, 3E and 4
Proposed changes to NRAP 5, 7 and 8
Proposed changes to NRAP 9
Proposed changes to NRAP 10, 11, 12 and 13

NRAP 14 Docketing Statement (page 46 of the pdf)
Subsection (a) Application and Purpose of Docketing Statement
Proposed changes to subsection (a) are primarily stylistic. A new clause would be added to subsection (a)(4) stating that one of the purposes of the docketing statement is to identify issues on appeal.

Subsection (b) Time for Filing
The time for filing the docketing statement would be expanded from 15 days to 20 days.
The new rule would allow the filing of a docketing statement that is not on the form provided by the clerk, so long as the statement contains every question included on the clerk's form.
The new rule would require the filing of two copies and the original. The current rule requires only one copy.

Subsection (d) Extensions of Time.
The new rule would allow extensions of time upon a showing of good cause. The current rule requires a showing of "the most compelling reasons."

Other changes are stylistic.

Analysis
The new provision allowing docketing statements on a form other than than provided by the clerk is long overdue and is a great change.

-------------------
There is no NRAP 15. There is no proposed changes to NRAP 16 (Settlement Conferences in Civil Appeals). Rules 17 to 20 are reserved.
-------------------

NRAP 21 Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition (page 48 of the pdf).
There are extensive changes to this rule. Please see the pdf for exact wording of the amendments.
Subsection (a) Service and Filing
Proposed changes to subsection (a)(1) would make it clear that the rule applies to mandamus and prohibition petitions filed agains corporations, commissions, boards and officers in addition to judges. It adds a requirement that the petition be served on each real party in interest. Under the new rule, if the petition is directed at a court, it shall be accompanied by a notice of the filing of the petition, that is to be served on all parties to the proceeding in that court.

Proposed changes to subsection (a)(2) direct that the caption shall include the name of each petitioner; the name of the appropriate judicial officer, public tribunal, commission, board or person to whom the writ is directed as the respondent; and the name of each real party in interest.

Proposed changes to subsection (a)(3), which addresses the contents of the petition, are primarily stylistic but also require the filing of points and legal authorities.

Subsection (a)(4) would be a new provision that requires the filing of an appendix that complies with NRAP 30.

Subsection (a)(5) would be a new provision that requires verification by affidavit (this is already required by statute).

Subsection (a)(6) would be a new provision that requires "a petition that requests the court to grant relief in less than 14 days shall also comply with th requirements of Rule 27(e)."

Subsection (b) Denial; Order Directing Answer
Subsection (b)(1), which states that the Court may deny the petition without an an answer or may order the respondent or real party in interest to answer, contains stylistic changes.

Subsection(b)(2) would require that the clerk serve the order to respond on all persons directed to respond. The current version of the rule requires service on respondents, all other parties to the action in the trial court and all other persons directly affected.

Subsection (b)(3), providing that two or more respondents or real parties in interest may answer jointly, remains primarily the same.

Subsection (b)(4) would be a new rule that codifies existing practice: The court may invite an amicus curiae to address the petition.

Subsection (b)(5) would be a new rule providing that "in extraordinary circumstances, the court may invite the trial court judge to address the petition.

Subsection (c) Other Extraordinary Writs
The proposed changes are stylistic.

Subsection (d) Form of Papers; Number of Copies
The current version provides that all papers may be typewritten and that six copies shall be filed unless the court directs the filing of additional copies. The new version would require that all papers conform to Rule 32(c)(2) and that the original and 2 copies be filed, unless the court requires the filing of a different number.

Subsection (e) Payment of Fees
The rule clarifies that the filing fee is $250.

Analysis
Most of the changes appear warranted. I have just a few concerns. First, the appendix rule requires inclusion of documents filed in the record below. The Court, however, is not limited to the record below in writ proceedings and the rule makes no mention of what should be done with documents that are not part of the lower court or tribunal record. My guess is that they should be exhibits to the petition, but the Court should clarify this matter. Proposed subsection (b)(5) states that in extraordinary circumstances, the court may invite the trial court judge to address the petition. I'm confused. In most circumstances, the trial court judge is named as the respondent and subsection (b)(1) already provides that the Court may direct the respondent or the real party in interest to answer the petition. So it appears that (b)(5) is unnecessary, but I could be missing something. Subsection (e) should clarify whether the $250 fee applies to criminal cases.

NRAP 22 Habeas Corpus Proceedings (page 51 of the pdf)
The proposed changes appear to be stylistic.