Your case is unique, but you are not alone.

About 41,000 new cases are filed in U.S. courts every weekday. Behind each one is a person trying to understand what happens next. Here’s what the public record can tell you about this matter — and about the people deciding it.

  • Know your judge

    Every judge has a pattern — what they grant, what they deny, how they handle the kinds of motions your case will see.

  • Know your attorney

    See an attorney’s actual track record — case types, courts, and how they’ve performed in front of this judge before.

  • Know your court

    Every courthouse has its own rhythm — filing-to-resolution times, common dispositions, how often cases like yours settle.

Is this judge more likely to rule for the plaintiff or the defendant in cases of this type?

How has your attorney actually performed in front of this judge?

AICasePredict surfaces patterns from public court records. We don’t predict outcomes and we don’t recommend changing your attorney — that’s a conversation for you and them. We just show you what the record already says.

Full Analytics Report

  • Complete case narrative
  • Judge details and rulings
  • Case disposition and outcome
  • All docket entries
  • Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase
Photo of Nevada Supreme Court

Court

Nevada Supreme Court

Nevada

View Court Profile

Case Information

Filed 2026-01-22
Status Awaiting Answer to Writ Petition
Type Original Proceeding Civil Mandamus
Docket 17 entries

Docket Entries

  1. Filed Appellant's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeal. (REJECTED PER PHONE CALL ON 02/19/2026). (SC)
  2. Filed Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (SC).
  3. Filed Index to Appendix Volumes 1-10 to Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (SC).
  4. Filed Appendix Volume 1 to Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (SC).
  5. Filed Appendix Volume 2 to Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (SC).
  6. Filed Appendix Volume 3 to Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (SC).
  7. Filed Appendix Volume 4 to Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (SC).
  8. Filed Appendix Volume 5 to Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (SC).
  9. Filed Appendix Volume 6 to Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (SC).
  10. Filed Appendix Volume 7 to Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (SC).
  11. Filed Appendix Volume 8 to Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (SC).
  12. Filed Appendix Volume 9 to Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (SC).
  13. Filed Appendix Volume 10 to Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (SC).
  14. Filed Petitioner's Emergency Motion to Stay Under NRAP 27(e) (Relief Requested by January 29, 2026) (STRICKEN PER 01/23/26 ORDER). (SC)
  15. Filed Order Striking Deficient Document. Order Striking Deficient Petitioner's Emergency Motion to Stay. Corrected motion due: 7 days. (SC)
  16. Filed Petitioner's Emergency Motion to Stay Under NRAP 27(e)(Relief Requested by January 29, 2026.(SC)
  17. Filed Order Directing Answer and Granting Stay. Docket No. 91946 is an appeal from district court orders enforcing a settlement agreement and directing Preventive Measures Security Firm, LLC, to pay $3 million to plaintiffs within 30 days. Docket No. 91992 is Preventive's petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the same orders. Preventive has filed emergency motions for stay in both cases, seeking to halt the district court proceedings against it and suspend enforcement of the payment orders pending our consideration of the appeal and writ petition. Plaintiffs have filed responses to the stay motion in Docket No. 91946, and Preventive has filed a reply. By filing both an appeal and a writ petition challenging the same orders, Preventive has raised a jurisdictional question as to whether the district court's orders are appealable. This issue is briefed in the parties' stay motion papers in Docket No. 91946. We defer ruling on the jurisdictional issue at this time. Nevertheless, with respect to the writ petition in Docket No. 91992, we have reviewed the petition and supporting documents, and we conclude that an answer may assist this court in resolving the petition. Therefore, real parties in interest, on behalf of respondents, shall have 28 days from the date of this order within which to file and serve answers, including authorities, against issuance of the requested writ. Preventive shall have 14 days from service of the last-filed answer to file and serve any reply. Further, having considered the parties' arguments regarding the requested stay under the NRAP 8(c) factors, we conclude that the factors militate in favor of a stay of the payment orders' enforcement upon the posting of a supersedeas bond in the amount of $3 million. Accordingly, we grant the motions and stay enforcement of the payment orders, effective upon the posting of the bond, pending further order of this court. To the extent Preventive seeks to stay the district court proceedings, the motions are denied. B26-LS/EC/PL (SC)

See the patterns behind this case

The free view above tells you who’s in the room. The detailed reports below show how the room tends to behave — using the same public records lawyers quietly rely on before every hearing.

  • Judge Report

    How this judge has ruled in cases like yours — case mix, motion outcomes, and historical docket. Judges set the floor of what’s possible in your courtroom.

  • Attorney vs Judge Report

    Everything in the Judge Report, plus how your attorney has actually performed in front of this judge. Attorneys move you off the floor — or don’t.

One-time payment, no subscription. Reports describe past public court activity — they don’t predict outcomes and they aren’t legal advice.

Get Free Case Details

Enter your email to receive case information including parties, docket entries, and status updates.

By submitting you agree to our Privacy Policy.

Need this case removed? Enter your email above — the confirmation email includes a case removal link.

Legal Analytics Has Been Featured In

Featured in Forbes, Bloomberg, The New Yorker, Above The Law, American Bar Association, and more