Nevada Supreme Court, 1979

County of Douglas v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Nevada Supreme Court · Decided February 12, 1979

95 Nev. 101; 590 P.2d 160; 1979 Nev. LEXIS 536

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Valley Health Sys., LLC v. Murray (Nev. 2023)
Valley Health Sys., LLC v. Murray (Nev. 2023)
Valley Health Sys., LLC v. Murray (Nev. 2023)
Fernhoff v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (District Court, D. Nevada 1984)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.