Skip to main content
Supreme Court of Nevada Fiat Justitia

Tuesday, October 17, 2017 - Las Vegas - Tao/Gibbons/Saitta

CENTOFANTI VS. ARANAS
Docket Number: 68871
Las Vegas - 10:00 AM - Court of Appeals

Alfred Centofanti filed a petition for writ of mandamus ordering Romeo Aranas, Medical Director of Nevada Department of Corrections, to fulfill his statutory and administrative duties. Aranas did not answer the petition. The district court denied Centofanti’s petition without a hearing, finding Centofanti had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether the district court abused its discretion by finding Centofanti had an adequate remedy at law, and (2) whether the district court denied Centofanti due process by failing to hold a hearing prior to denying his petition.

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.

HERNANDEZ VS. ALONSO (CHILD CUSTODY)
Docket Number: 70675
Las Vegas - 10:30 AM - Court of Appeals

Appellant Arnoldo Hernandez asked the district court to review and modify the child support order from a stipulated custody decree. Respondent Karina Alonso is the mother of the child subject to the decree. Karina opposed Arnoldo’s motion and asked the district court to award her primary physical custody of the child and increase Arnoldo’s child support obligation accordingly. The district court denied Arnoldo’s request and granted Karina’s requests. On appeal, Arnoldo argues the district court abused its discretion by awarding Karina primary physical custody without making factual findings regarding their actual custody practices. Further, Arnoldo argues the district court abused its discretion by increasing his child support obligation without finding a substantial change justifying such a modification or finding that a modification would be in the child’s best interest.

ISSUES:

Whether the district court abused its discretion by modifying custody pursuant to respondent’s countermotion without holding an evidentiary hearing or making the requisite findings.

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.