Opinion · Nevada Supreme Court

Round Hill General Improvement District v. Newman

97 Nev. 601

Type: Opinion
Court: Nevada Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Date: 1981-12-18
Topic: general

recognizing that "an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of face and SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0 | recognizing that "an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of fact" | recognizing that "an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of fact" | recognizing that "an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of face | recognizing that "an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of facr | recognizing that a writ of mandamus is available to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion | recognizing that “an appellate court is not an appropriate forum AA-AAVTX in which to resolve disputed questions of fact” | recognizing that “an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of fact” | recognizing that “an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of fact” | recognizing that a writ of mandamus is available to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion | recognizing that a writ of mandamus is available to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion | recognizing that a writ of mandamus is available to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion | recognizing that a writ of mandamus is available to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion | recognizing that "an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of face | recognizing that "an appellate court is not an appropriate forum SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA ivITA in which to resolve disputed questions of fact" | recognizing that a writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0 | recognizing that the respondent must have "a clear, present legal duty to act | recognizing that "an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of fact" and determining that when there are factual issues presented, this court will SUPREME COURT oF NEVADA (D | recognizing that "an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of face and determining that when there are factual issues presented, this court will SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0 | stating that an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve factual issues | recognizing that a writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office or to control a manifest or arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion | recognizing that a writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an action which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion | recognizing that a writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion | recognizing that a writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion | recognizing that a writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion | recognizing that a writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an action which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion | noting that mandamus will not lie to control the district court’s exercise of discretion unless that

Citator

Cited by: 215 opinions

*603 OPINION

By the Court, Zenoff, Sr. J. 1 :

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.