Degraw v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., 419 P.3d 136

David Degraw, whose attorney was a sitting member of the Nevada Legislature, moved under NRS 1.310 to continue custody-related proceedings for the duration of the 2017 legislative session.
Misty Degraw opposed the continuance, alleging emergency circumstances (children being withheld) and arguing NRS 1.310 violated separation of powers and her fundamental parental rights.
The district court granted the statutory stay but found NRS 1.310 unconstitutional as it removed judicial discretion and ordered an evidentiary hearing during the legislative session.
The Nevada Supreme Court stayed the evidentiary hearing, lifted the stay after the session, and the parties subsequently resolved their custody dispute.
Because the underlying custody dispute was resolved, the Supreme Court concluded the case was moot and declined to decide the statute’s constitutionality or to rewrite NRS 1.310 to add exceptions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NRS 1.310 is constitutional under separation of powers	Misty: statute is facially unconstitutional; it commandeers judicial procedure and infringes parental rights	David: statute should be interpreted as generally mandatory but subject to exceptions (emergencies, fundamental rights) to avoid constitutional problems	Not decided on merits — case is moot; court declined to reach constitutionality and refused to rewrite the statute to create exceptions
Whether the case falls within the "capable of repetition yet evading review" mootness exception	David: because legislative sessions recur and attorney-legislators will appear again, the issue is likely to recur	Misty: (implicit) the particular dispute is resolved so moot; no established pattern shown	Court: exception not met — recurrence speculative and parties conceded mandatory reading would be unconstitutional, so court would be rewriting statute; thus no relief
Whether court may interpret NRS 1.310 to add exceptions (constitutional avoidance)	David/LCB: ask court to adopt a limiting construction (emergency/fundamental-rights exceptions) to save statute	Misty: statute facially unconstitutional; no limiting construction available	Court: refused — constitutional-avoidance cannot be used to rewrite statute; such policy changes are for Legislature; also record insufficient to adjudicate emergency claims

Poulos v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 98 Nev. 453, 652 P.2d 1177 (1982) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and court has discretion whether to entertain petition)
NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., 97 Nev. 56, 624 P.2d 10 (1981) (Nevada courts should decide actual controversies, not moot questions)
Bisch v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 129 Nev. 328, 302 P.3d 1108 (2013) (elements for "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception explained)
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (constitutional-avoidance canon limits courts to interpretation, not rewriting statutes)
Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 407 P.3d 702 (2017) (declining advisory mandamus where legal issue was not fully developed in district court)
Holiday Ret. Corp. v. State, Div. of Indus. Relations, 128 Nev. 150, 274 P.3d 759 (2012) (policy changes to statutes are legislature's prerogative)