Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Nevada State Engineer V. Happy Creek, Inc., 375 Nev. Adv. Op 41 (Sep. 12, 2019), Paige Silva
Nevada State Engineer V. Happy Creek, Inc., 375 Nev. Adv. Op 41 (Sep. 12, 2019), Paige Silva
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In water rights permit cancellation cases, the Nevada courts have long-standing and well-supported authority to grant equitable relief from the new priority date that NRS 533.395 requires the State Engineer to assign.
Eureka County V. Seventy Jud. Dist. Ct., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (May 17, 2018), Carmen Gilbert
Eureka County V. Seventy Jud. Dist. Ct., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (May 17, 2018), Carmen Gilbert
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The court held that junior water rights holders are entitled to notice of and an opportunity to participate in the district court's consideration of a curtailment request.
King, P.E. V. St. Clair, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 18 (Mar. 29, 2018), Joseph K. Fabbi
King, P.E. V. St. Clair, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 18 (Mar. 29, 2018), Joseph K. Fabbi
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
There must be clear and convincing, substantial evidence that a real property owner intentionally abandoned his water rights in order for the Court to find he actually abandoned them.
Jackson V. Groenendyke, 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 409 (April 7, 2016), Kory Koerperich
Jackson V. Groenendyke, 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 409 (April 7, 2016), Kory Koerperich
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The court determined that (1) a district court may consider supplements to a party’s timely filed exceptions to a water rights determination; and (2) the district court’s determination of water rights was supported by substantial evidence.
Eureka Cnty. V. Off. Of State Engr. Of State Of Nev., Div. Of Water Resources, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 84 (Oct. 29, 2015), Chelsea Finnegan
Eureka Cnty. V. Off. Of State Engr. Of State Of Nev., Div. Of Water Resources, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 84 (Oct. 29, 2015), Chelsea Finnegan
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
For the State Engineer to grant water rights applications, there must be evidence to support the decision and the new rights must not substantially conflict with existing rights. On appeal from the District Court, the Court found no evidence to support the granted application, and held the use of Respondent’s rights would severely impact the water table. The Court reversed and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Benson V. State Engineer, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 409 (Sep. 24, 2015), Cassandra Ramey
Benson V. State Engineer, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 409 (Sep. 24, 2015), Cassandra Ramey
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that NRS § 533.395 requires a party seeking relief from the cancellation of a water permit to exhaust all available administrative remedies before seeking judicial review, even if the State Engineer is not authorized to provide the particular remedy that the party seeks. If the State Engineer is authorized by NRS § 533.395 to provide a party with a remedy, then the doctrine of futility does not apply to excuse the NRS § 533.394(4) exhaustion requirement. Therefore, the party must first show that the administrative process would afford him or her “no relief at all” before seeking …