State ex rel. Casady v. Lauritzen

260 P.2d 783, 70 Nev. 134, 1953 Nev. LEXIS 61
CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 9, 1953
DocketNo. 3767
StatusPublished

This text of 260 P.2d 783 (State ex rel. Casady v. Lauritzen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Casady v. Lauritzen, 260 P.2d 783, 70 Nev. 134, 1953 Nev. LEXIS 61 (Neb. 1953).

Opinion

[135]*135OPINION

Per Curiam:

This is an original proceeding in certiorari to review action of the Board of County Commissioners of Lander County in calling a special election to determine the location of the county seat of that county. A writ of certiorari upon petition of the relators was issued by this court July 24, 1953. The answer of the respondents challenges the propriety of the writ. In our view their position is well taken and the writ must be quashed.

Relators contend that the board exceeded its statutory authority to call the election in two respects: first, that an insufficient number of taxpaying electors had petitioned for the holding of the election; second, that the election was not called within the time prescribed by law. Pertinent statutory provisions are contained in an act providing for the removal of county seats and permanent location of the same, enacted in 1877, secs. 1924-1928, N.C.L.1929.

While grave questions are thus raised reflecting upon the validity of the action taken by the. board and upon any election which might be based thereon, in our view the case of State ex rel. Kaufman v. Martin, 31 Nev. 493, 103 P. 840, is controlling. Considering the same statute here confronting us (the pertinent provisions of which are there set forth) this court there clearly held that a board of county commissioners in determining the number of petitioning taxpayer electors and in calling an election under the statute, acted ministerially and not judicially. Under these circumstances, as this court repeatedly has held, certiorari will not lie to review the [136]*136action of respondents. In re Rourke, 13 Nev. 253; State ex rel. Esmeralda County v. Dist. Court, 18 Nev. 438, 5 P. 64; State ex rel. Thompson v. Board of Commissioners of Washoe County, 23 Nev. 247, 45 P. 529; State ex rel. Fletcher v. Osburn, 24 Nev. 187, 51 P. 837; Southern Development Company v. Douglass, 26 Nev. 50, 63 P. 38; State ex rel. Murphy v. White Pine County, 31 Nev. 113, 101 P. 104; Degiovanni v. Public Service Commission, 45 Nev. 74, 197 P. 582; State ex rel. Fall v. Kelso, 46 Nev. 128, 208 P. 424.

Effective as of this date it is ordered that the writ of certiorari heretofore issued in this matter be and the same hereby is quashed and set aside and these proceedings dismissed.

Dated: September 9, 1953.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Ex Rel. Fletcher v. Osburn
51 P. 837 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1898)
State v. Washoe Co. Commrs.
45 P. 529 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1896)
Southern Development Co. v. Douglass
63 P. 38 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1900)
In re Rourke
13 Nev. 253 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1878)
Esmeralda County v. Third Judicial District Court
18 Nev. 438 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1884)
State ex rel. Thompson v. Board of County Commissioners
23 Nev. 247 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1896)
State ex rel. Murphy v. County of White Pine
31 Nev. 113 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1909)
State ex rel. Kaufman v. Martin
31 Nev. 493 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1909)
Degiovanni v. Public Service Commission
197 P. 582 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1921)
State ex rel. Fall v. Kelso
208 P. 424 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
260 P.2d 783, 70 Nev. 134, 1953 Nev. LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-casady-v-lauritzen-nev-1953.