immediately appealable. The motion is opposed. Having considered the
motion and the arguments of counsel, and cause appearing, we deny the
motion to confirm jurisdiction.
This court has declined to adopt the collateral order doctrine:
Interlocutory appeals cause delay, expense and
disruption. Adopting the collateral order doctrine
would require this court to extensively screen
appeals from interlocutory orders to determine
whether this court has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction
lines would become unfocused and uncertain. This
in turn could result in a proliferation of premature
appeals. These burdens would outweigh any
possible benefits that could result from adoption of
the collateral order doctrine.
State Taxicab Auth. v. Greenspun, 109 Nev. 1022, 1025, 862 P.2d 423, 425
(1993) (internal citations omitted). Instead, this court addresses
challenges to a district court's preliminary rejection of a claim of
governmental immunity through its powers to grant extraordinary relief.
See, e.g., State v. Second Judicial Dist. Court ex rd. Cnty. of Washoe, 118
Nev. 609, 617, 55 P.3d 420, 425 (2002).
This court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal only when the
appeal is authorized by statute or court rule. Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton
Hotels, 100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984). As no statute or court rule
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A e 2
permits an appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss, Castillo v.
State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990), we
ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.'
, C.J.
Hardesty
qA J.
Douglas
Cherry
cc: Hon. Joanna Kishner, District Judge
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara, LLP
Clark County District Attorney/Civil Division
Mainor Wirth
G. Dallas Horton & Associates
Henness & Haight
Edward M. Bernstein & Associates/Las Vegas
Callister & Associates
Golightly & Vannah, PLLC
Eighth District Court Clerk
'We deny as moot the motion to dismiss and associated notice of
interested party filed September 11, 2015, and September 14, 2015.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A ceSts•
3