Case Name: RALPH LAMB, SHERIFF OF CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, In His Offical Capacity, STATE OF NEVADA, and COUNTY OF CLARK, Appellants, v. JOHN DOE, On Behalf of Himself and Every Other Person Similarly Situated in the Same or Similar Class, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Decision Date: 1976-09-30
Citations: 92 Nev. 550
Docket Number: No. 8956
Parties: RALPH LAMB, SHERIFF OF CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, In His Offical Capacity, STATE OF NEVADA, and COUNTY OF CLARK, Appellants, v. JOHN DOE, On Behalf of Himself and Every Other Person Similarly Situated in the Same or Similar Class, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Nevada Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 550–551

Head Matter:
RALPH LAMB, SHERIFF OF CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, In His Offical Capacity, STATE OF NEVADA, and COUNTY OF CLARK, Appellants, v. JOHN DOE, On Behalf of Himself and Every Other Person Similarly Situated in the Same or Similar Class, Respondent.
No. 8956
September 30, 1976
554 P.2d 732
Robert List, Attorney General, Marcus H. Sloan and A. J. Hicks, Deputy Attorneys General, for Appellant State of Nevada.
George E. Holt, District Attorney, and Thomas J. Moore, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Appellants Ralph Lamb and County of Clark.
R. Paul Sorenson and Kermitt L. Waters, of Las Vegas, for Respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION
Per Curiam:
This action for declaratory and injunctive relief was commenced by John Doe, identity unknown, for himself and as the purported representative of an undefined class of persons, similarly situated. Its purpose is to preclude the enforcement against the unidentified plaintiffs of certain criminal laws regarding bookmaking. The district' court granted plaintiffs the relief requested, and this appeal followed.
The immediate matter, before us for attention is the motion of the appellants for a stay, of the district court judgment pending appeal. Since we believe it to be clear that the district court was in error in entering judgment for plaintiffs, we choose to dispose of this htigation rather than to rule upon the interim motion for a stay order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and remand the matter to the district court with direction to dismiss the action below. It is not the court's business to render advisory opinions for unknown persons who may or may not have a justiciable controversy with named defendants.