1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.3d
  4. 13 P.3d
  5. 13 P.3d 395 (2000)
 

STATE ENGINEER v. TRUCKEE-CARSON IRRIG.

No. 33945, 34134.

13 P.3d 395 (2000)

R. Michael TURNIPSEED, State Engineer, State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources; and Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians, Appellants, v. TRUCKEE-CARSON IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Corkill Brothers, Inc., Sierra Pacific Power Company, City of Reno, City of Sparks, and the County of Washoe, Respondents. Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians, Petitioner, v. The Third Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and for the County of Churchill, and the Honorables Archie E. Blake and David A. Huff, District Judges, Respondents, and Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, and Corkill Bros., Inc., Real Parties in Interest.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

November 30, 2000.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, and Paul G. Taggart, Deputy Attorney General, Carson City, for R. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources.

Williams & Emm, Fallon, for Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians.

Lyman F. McConnell, Fallon; McQuaid, Metzler, Bedford & Van Zandt, San Francisco, California, for Truckee-Carson Irrigation District.

Woodburn & Wedge and Gordon H. DePaoli, Reno, for Sierra Pacific Power Company.

Richard A. Gammick, Washoe County District Attorney, and John B. Rhodes and George G. Campbell, Deputy District Attorneys, Reno, for County of Washoe.

Mackedon & McCormick and Steven D. King, Fallon, for Corkill Brothers, Inc.

Patricia A. Lynch, City Attorney, and Susan Ball Rothe and Donald L. Christensen, Deputy City Attorneys, Reno, for City of Reno and City of Sparks.

BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

These consolidated water appropriation cases present two issues of statutory construction in the context of a motion for a peremptory challenge and a motion for a change of venue. Specifically, the appellants and petitioner ask this court to interpret the words and the phrase "appealed from a lower court" in SCR 48.1 and the phrase "the matters affected" in NRS 533.450(1). For the reasons set forth herein, we conclude that the...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases