Opinion ID: 1186313
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether a writ of prohibition is the proper remedy?

Text: Preliminarily, this Court is asked to decide whether or not a writ of prohibition is the proper procedure with which to resolve a question concerning the propriety of a trial judge's voluntary disqualification. It is clear that a writ of prohibition must issue when there is an act to be arrested which is without or in excess of the jurisdiction of the trial judge under NRS 34.320 [1] , Culinary Workers v. District Court, 66 Nev. 166, 207 P.2d 990 (1949); Seaborn v. District Court, 55 Nev. 206, 29 P.2d 500 (1934), and where there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law pursuant to NRS 34.330 [2] . Heilig v. Christensen, 91 Nev. 120, 532 P.2d 267 (1975). Since the voluntary order of disqualification of a judge is not an appealable order in the ordinary course of law, NRAP 3A(b), see Clack v. Jones, 62 Nev. 72, 140 P.2d 580 (1943), Petitioner is, therefore, without a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law. The unavailability of a valid legal basis for review satisfies one of the requirements for the issuance of a writ. The question of whether Respondent's action in this case exceeded the jurisdiction of the court below, to fulfill the second prerequisite for issuance is, in actuality, the substantive issue raised by this petition, that of whether the recusal here, albeit voluntary, was proper. A resolution of this issue then will necessarily be dispositive of the question of excess of jurisdiction, and we turn now to consider it.