TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

County of Douglas v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

THE COUNTY OF DOUGLAS, a Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada ROLAND ADAMS, Planning Director and Manager of the County of Douglas and ROBERT A. GARDNER, Engineer of the County of Douglas v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY

Cnty. of Douglas v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 590 P.2d 160 (Nev. 1979)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Nevada Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 12, 1979
Docket
No. 9726
Citations
590 P.2d 16095 Nev. 1011979 Nev. LEXIS 536

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

OPINION Per Curiam:

The County of Douglas, Nevada, with its Planning Director/ Manager and its Engineer, here appeal from a judgment enjoining their approval of any parcel maps violating the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency ordinances, and ordering them to vacate approval and certifications of one such parcel map, as well as to expunge that map from the county’s official records.

The facts are undisputed. The county approved and certified a parcel map which satisfies Douglas County ordinances, but violates TRPA’s land use ordinance. TRPA brought this action to compel County and its officers to vacate their approval and certifications of that parcel map and to expunge it from County’s official records. 1 Judgment was granted in favor of TRPA. Appellants claim they need not enforce the TRPA’s ordinance, and proffer various arguments in support of their position. The trial court considered and disposed of all of these arguments in its decision, No. 7327, filed August 9, 1976, and captioned “Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) vs. Henry J. Martin, et al.” For the reasons given, and based on the authority set forth therein, we affirm the judgment. 2

TRPA also requested injunctive relief against the owners of the premises described by the parcel map. However, direct relief against the owners was denied as rendered moot by the decision against the governmental defendants. The owners are not parties to this appeal.

Justice Noel Manoukian voluntarily disqualified himself from participating in the decision of this appeal.

The Chief Justice designated The Honorable David Zenoff, Senior Justice, to sit in this case in place of The Honorable Noel Manoukian, Nev. Const, art. 6, § 19; SCR 243.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1984: 12023: 319842026peak 2023 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Fernhoff v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency599 F. Supp. 185 (D. Nev. 1984)
  2. Valley Health Sys., LLC v. MurrayNo. 80968 (Nev. Aug. 17, 2023)
  3. Valley Health Sys., LLC v. MurrayNo. 80113 (Nev. Aug. 17, 2023)
  4. Valley Health Sys., LLC v. MurrayNo. 79658 (Nev. Aug. 17, 2023)

Most recent

  1. Valley Health Sys., LLC v. MurrayNo. 80968 (Nev. Aug. 17, 2023)
  2. Valley Health Sys., LLC v. MurrayNo. 80113 (Nev. Aug. 17, 2023)
  3. Valley Health Sys., LLC v. MurrayNo. 79658 (Nev. Aug. 17, 2023)
  4. Fernhoff v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency599 F. Supp. 185 (D. Nev. 1984)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list