The Nevada Supreme Court this week dismissed the argument over whether the state could use the drug midazolam to execute Scott Dozier.
The drug maker Alvogen sued to block Nevada from using its drug in the execution but the case was put on hold because Dozier committed suicide.
Despite that, both sides argued that the issue remains important because there is a likelihood that other executions will be scheduled in which Nevada would use midazolam.
The high court ruled that the issue is moot because Dozier is dead and no execution is currently scheduled. They said execution warrants must be signed at least 60 days before execution week and pointed out that the drug Nevada has on hand will expire in January. The order states that, therefore, any decision in the case would have no real effect and therefore, the issue is not viable because, the injury supporting issuance of a preliminary injunction must be reasonably probable and real, not theoretical.”
They said Alvogen can seek a new preliminary injunction should the need arise.
Justice Kris Pickering did not participate in the decision, which was unanimous by the remaining six justices.
-->The Nevada Supreme Court this week dismissed the argument over whether the state could use the drug midazolam to execute Scott Dozier.
The drug maker Alvogen sued to block Nevada from using its drug in the execution but the case was put on hold because Dozier committed suicide.
Despite that, both sides argued that the issue remains important because there is a likelihood that other executions will be scheduled in which Nevada would use midazolam.
The high court ruled that the issue is moot because Dozier is dead and no execution is currently scheduled. They said execution warrants must be signed at least 60 days before execution week and pointed out that the drug Nevada has on hand will expire in January. The order states that, therefore, any decision in the case would have no real effect and therefore, the issue is not viable because, the injury supporting issuance of a preliminary injunction must be reasonably probable and real, not theoretical.”
They said Alvogen can seek a new preliminary injunction should the need arise.
Justice Kris Pickering did not participate in the decision, which was unanimous by the remaining six justices.