Nevada Supreme Court
Round Hill General Improvement District v. Newman
Round Hill General Improvement District, a Quasi-Municipal Corporation, Petitioner, and Incline Village General…
97 Nev. 601 · 637 P.2d 534
Decided December 18, 1981
Good LawGood law: 71 citing cases carry treatments with no negative treatment.
Summary
The court denied the petitions for mandamus because the governing statute allowed the State Engineer to withhold action while related water-rights litigation remained pending, so the Engineer had no clear duty to act. The petitioners’ claim that later-filed applications had been treated differently depended on disputed facts that could not be resolved in an original appellate writ proceeding and should be presented first in district court.
Holdings
- Whether the State Engineer had a clear duty to act on the applications despite the pending litigation.. The statute authorized the State Engineer to withhold action while the related court action was pending, so the petitioners could not establish a clear, present duty to act warranting mandamus. *603
- Whether the petitioners could establish manifest abuse of discretion in the original writ proceeding based on the Engineer’s action on later-filed applications.. The petitions could not be resolved in the original appellate proceeding because the claim depended on disputed factual questions; those questions should be presented to the district court in a mandamus action, with appeal available from an adverse judgment. *604
Written by LawDiver's case analysis.
How later courts treated this case
352 opinions cite this case
Cited
B.Y. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 32. Writ relief is warranted in part.
Cited
Middleton (David) v. Dist. Ct. (Warden) (Death Penalty). cited for definition of writ of mandamus
Cited
Kemp (Ezra) v. Dist. Ct. (State). citing Round Hill for the principle that mandamus may be issued to compel a duty
Cited
Salazar (Antonio) v. Dist. Ct. (State). Provides the traditional definition of mandamus and the concept of manifest abuse of discretion.
Cited
Matthiesen v. Dist. Ct. (Griffith). citing to define the scope of prohibition writs
See all citing casesFilter by court, year and treatment in LawDiver. Free, no login.
In this case
Opinion of the Court
*603 OPINION
Petitioner Round Hill General Improvement District (Round Hill), and intervening petitioner Incline Village General Improvement District (IVGID), seek writs of mandamus to compel the State Engineer to act on their applications for permits to appropriate water from Lake Tahoe. NRS 533.325 et seq. The State Engineer has declined to act on the applications on the ground that a pending court action in the area is not final.
NRS 533.370(3) provides:
The state engineer shall either approve or reject each application within 1 year from the final date for filing protest; but:
(b) In areas where . . . court actions are pending the state engineer may withhold action until such time as it is determined there is unappropriated water or the court action becomes final.
The court action to which the State Engineer refers is litigation between the United States, the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians, and the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, over water rights to the Truckee River. It is not subject to dispute that this action is not final within the meaning of the statute, as a result of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Truckee-Carson, etc., 649 F.2d 1286 (9th Cir. 1981). Nor is it reasonably subject to dispute, see NRS 47.130, that the federal litigation in question involves the same area as Lake Tahoe: the Truckee River rises out of Lake Tahoe. See United States v. Nevada, 412 U.S. 534 (1973). Petitioners Round Hill and IVGID were both named defendants in the federal action. Under the plain meaning of NRS 533.370(3)(b), the State Engineer therefore has discretion to withhold action on petitioners’ applications.
A writ of mandamus will issue when the respondent has a clear, present legal duty to act. NRS 34.160; Gill v. St. ex rel. Booher, 75 Nev. 448, 345 P.2d 421 (1959). Mandamus will not lie to control discretionary action, Gragson v. Toco, 90 Nev. *604 131, 520 P.2d 616 (1974), unless discretion is manifestly abused or is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. Henderson v. Henderson Auto, 77 Nev. 118, 359 P.2d 743 (1961). Petitioners contend that the State Engineer has manifestly abused the discretion granted by NRS 533.370(3)(b), because he has granted permits for water appropriation from Lake Tahoe pursuant to applications which were filed after petitioners’ applications. The State Engineer concedes that some applications junior to petitioners’ have been acted upon. There is no similar concession regarding how much water has been appropriated under such subsequent permits, or why the State Engineer has chosen to act upon them.
As we have repeatedly noted, an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of fact. E.g., Sheriff v. Provenza, 97 Nev. 346, 630 P.2d 265 (1981); Buchanan v. Buchanan, 90 Nev. 209, 523 P.2d 1 (1974). When disputed factual issues are critical in demonstrating the propriety of a writ of mandamus, the writ should be sought in the district court, with appeal from an adverse judgment to this court. NRS 34.160; 34.220; 34.310; The discretion of this court to entertain a petition for a writ of mandamus when important public interests are involved, State ex rel. List v. County of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 524 P.2d 1271 (1974), will not be exercised unless legal, rather than factual, issues are presented.
Accordingly, these petitions for writs of mandamus are denied.
Gunderson, C. J., and Springer and Mowbray, JJ., and Gabrielli, D. J., 2 concur.
The Chief Justice designated The Honorable David Zenoff, Senior Justice, to sit in this case in place of The Honorable Cameron Batjer, Justice. Nev. Const, art. 6, § 19; SCR 10; 11.
Research the next case the same way
Everything on this page, for any of 10 million opinions.
Search every way lawyers do
Citation, case name, boolean with /s and /p, or a plain-English question. Free, no login.
See what still holds
Every case shows how later courts treated it: followed, distinguished, limited or overruled.
Check a brief before you file
CiteCheck reads your brief and flags cites that don't exist, don't match, or aren't good law.
Use it where you work
The LawDiver connector brings real caselaw into Claude, ChatGPT and Cursor. An API for builders.
Try CiteCheck free or create a free account for AI research and saved folders
Related landmark cases
- State, Bd. of Parole Comm'Rs vs. Dist. Ct. (thompson (marlin))2019 NV 53 (2019)
- The State of Nevada v. the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and for the County of Clark And…127 Nev. 927 (2011)
- International Game Technology, Inc., a Nevada Corporation v. the Second Judicial District Court of the State Of…124 Nev. 193 (2008)
- Department of Commerce, Petitioners v. New York588 U.S. 752 (2019)
- Capital Care Network of Toledo, Appellee v. Ohio Department of Health, Appellant.153 Ohio St. 3d 362 (2018)