NRS
533.450 Orders and decisions of State Engineer subject to judicial
review; procedure; motions for stay; appeals; appearance by Attorney General.
1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 533.353, any person feeling aggrieved
by any order or decision of the State Engineer, acting in person or through the
assistants of the State Engineer or the water commissioner, affecting the
person’s interests, when the order or decision relates to the administration of
determined rights or is made pursuant to NRS
533.270 to 533.445, inclusive, or NRS 533.481, 534.193, 535.200
or 536.200, may have the same reviewed
by a proceeding for that purpose, insofar as may be in the nature of an appeal,
which must be initiated in the proper court of the county in which the matters
affected or a portion thereof are situated, but on stream systems where a
decree of court has been entered, the action must be initiated in the court
that entered the decree. The order or decision of the State Engineer remains in
full force and effect unless proceedings to review the same are commenced in
the proper court within 30 days after the rendition of the order or decision in
question and notice thereof is given to the State Engineer as provided in
subsection 3.
2. The proceedings in every case must be
heard by the court, and must be informal and summary, but full opportunity to
be heard must be had before judgment is pronounced.
3. No such proceedings may be entertained
unless notice thereof, containing a statement of the substance of the order or
decision complained of, and of the manner in which the same injuriously affects
the petitioner’s interests, has been served upon the State Engineer, personally
or by registered or certified mail, at the Office of the State Engineer at the
State Capital within 30 days following the rendition of the order or decision
in question. A similar notice must also be served personally or by registered
or certified mail upon the person who may have been affected by the order or
decision.
4. Where evidence has been filed with, or
testimony taken before, the State Engineer, a transcribed copy thereof, or of
any specific part of the same, duly certified as a true and correct transcript
in the manner provided by law, must be received in evidence with the same
effect as if the reporter were present and testified to the facts so certified.
A copy of the transcript must be furnished on demand, at actual cost, to any
person affected by the order or decision, and to all other persons on payment
of a reasonable amount therefor, to be fixed by the State Engineer.
5. An order or decision of the State
Engineer must not be stayed unless the petitioner files a written motion for a
stay with the court and serves the motion personally or by registered or
certified mail upon the State Engineer, the applicant or other real party in
interest and each party of record within 10 days after the petitioner files the
petition for judicial review. Any party may oppose the motion and the
petitioner may reply to any such opposition. In determining whether to grant or
deny the motion for a stay, the court shall consider:
(a) Whether any nonmoving party to the proceeding
may incur any harm or hardship if the stay is granted;
(b) Whether the petitioner may incur any
irreparable harm if the stay is denied;
(c) The likelihood of success of the petitioner
on the merits; and
(d) Any potential harm to the members of the
public if the stay is granted.
6. Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the petitioner must file a bond in an amount determined by the
court, with sureties satisfactory to the court and conditioned in the manner
specified by the court. The bond must be filed within 5 days after the court
determines the amount of the bond pursuant to this subsection. If the
petitioner fails to file the bond within that period, the stay is automatically
denied. A bond must not be required for a public agency of this State or a
political subdivision of this State.
7. Costs must be paid as in civil cases
brought in the district court, except by the State Engineer or the State.
8. The practice in civil cases applies to
the informal and summary character of such proceedings, as provided in this
section.
9. Appeals may be taken to the appellate
court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the rules fixed by the Supreme
Court pursuant to Section 4 of Article
6 of the Nevada Constitution from the judgment of the district court in the
same manner as in other civil cases.
10. The decision of the State Engineer is
prima facie correct, and the burden of proof is upon the party attacking the
same.
11. Whenever it appears to the State
Engineer that any litigation, whether now pending or hereafter brought, may
adversely affect the rights of the public in water, the State Engineer shall
request the Attorney General to appear and protect the interests of the State.
[75:140:1913; A 1915,
378; 1951,
132]—(NRS A 1957,
532; 1969,
95; 1977,
426; 2007,
2019; 2009,
647; 2013,
495, 1788)
Notes of Decisions
In Re Nevada State Engr. Ruling No. 5823, 277 P.3d 449 (Nev. 2012).
· cites it 44× “: NRS 533.450(1) affords judicial review "in the nature of an appeal" to "[a]ny person feeling aggrieved by any order or decision of the State [Water] Engineer .”
Churchill Cnty. v. State Eng'r, 277 P.3d 449 (Nev. 2012).
· cites it 44× “; NRS 533.450(1) affords judicial review “in the nature of an appeal” to “[a]ny person feeling aggrieved by any order or decision of the State [Water] Engineer .”
Howell v. Ricci, 197 P.3d 1044 (Nev. 2008).
· cites it 14× “5 Additionally, we stated that the final determination of the water rights occurred in 1944 “in accordance with then applicable notice and filing requirements” and that the Howells were thus procedurally barred from contesting PR’s permits pursuant to NRS 533.450’s requirement…”
Desert Valley Water Co. v. State, 766 P.2d 886 (Nev. 1988).
· cites it 7× “A fair reading of NRS 533.450 does not support respondents’ assertion that such a burdensome notice requirement must be met simply to allow the exercise of jurisdiction.”
Town of Eureka v. Off. of the State Eng'r, 826 P.2d 948 (Nev. 1992).
· cites it 3× “In August, 1989, the Town filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to NRS 533.450, arguing that the State Engineer erred in forfeiting that portion of the Town’s water rights.”
Turnipseed v. Truckee-Carson Irrigation Dist., 13 P.3d 395 (Nev. 2000).
· cites it 5× “Although the Engineer is generally not required to dispose of individual applications piecemeal, as the Engineer has done in this matter, and, although the district court may later consolidate related review actions, NRS 533.450 imposes no requirement that decisions trickling…”
Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976).
“See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.450 (1973). In August 1971 the United States, invoking 28 U.”
Revert v. Ray, 603 P.2d 262 (Nev. 1979).
· cites it 2× “” NRS 533.450(1) and (2). Moreover, while the legislature originally provided for such a de novo review, 1913 Nev.”
United States v. State Eng'r, 27 P.3d 51 (Nev. 2001).
· cites it 2× “See NRS 533.450(9). The United States asserts that the State Engineer erred because he went beyond the plain meaning of the statute in construing the statute.”
Sullivan v. Lincoln Cnty. Water Dist., 542 P.3d 411 (Nev. 2024).
· cites it 4× “Petitions for judicial review Water rights holders affected by Order 1309 petitioned the district court for judicial review under NRS 533.450, and the cases were consolidated.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.450(1) — 19 cases
In Re Nevada State Engr. Ruling No. 5823, 277 P.3d 449 (Nev. 2012).
“: NRS 533.450(1) affords judicial review "in the nature of an appeal" to "[a]ny person feeling aggrieved by any order or decision of the State [Water] Engineer .”
Churchill Cnty. v. State Eng'r, 277 P.3d 449 (Nev. 2012).
“; NRS 533.450(1) affords judicial review “in the nature of an appeal” to “[a]ny person feeling aggrieved by any order or decision of the State [Water] Engineer .”
Howell v. Ricci, 197 P.3d 1044 (Nev. 2008).
“5 Additionally, we stated that the final determination of the water rights occurred in 1944 “in accordance with then applicable notice and filing requirements” and that the Howells were thus procedurally barred from contesting PR’s permits pursuant to NRS 533.450’s requirement…”
Turnipseed v. Truckee-Carson Irrigation Dist., 13 P.3d 395 (Nev. 2000).
“Although the Engineer is generally not required to dispose of individual applications piecemeal, as the Engineer has done in this matter, and, although the district court may later consolidate related review actions, NRS 533.450 imposes no requirement that decisions trickling…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.450(10) — 4 cases
In Re Nevada State Engr. Ruling No. 5823, 277 P.3d 449 (Nev. 2012).
“: NRS 533.450(1) affords judicial review "in the nature of an appeal" to "[a]ny person feeling aggrieved by any order or decision of the State [Water] Engineer .”
Churchill Cnty. v. State Eng'r, 277 P.3d 449 (Nev. 2012).
“; NRS 533.450(1) affords judicial review “in the nature of an appeal” to “[a]ny person feeling aggrieved by any order or decision of the State [Water] Engineer .”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.450(2) — 2 cases
Revert v. Ray, 603 P.2d 262 (Nev. 1979).
“” NRS 533.450(1) and (2). Moreover, while the legislature originally provided for such a de novo review, 1913 Nev.”
Desert Valley Water Co. v. State, 766 P.2d 886 (Nev. 1988).
“A fair reading of NRS 533.450 does not support respondents’ assertion that such a burdensome notice requirement must be met simply to allow the exercise of jurisdiction.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.450(3) — 4 cases
Desert Valley Water Co. v. State, 766 P.2d 886 (Nev. 1988).
“A fair reading of NRS 533.450 does not support respondents’ assertion that such a burdensome notice requirement must be met simply to allow the exercise of jurisdiction.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.450(5) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.450(7) — 1 case
Desert Valley Water Co. v. State, 766 P.2d 886 (Nev. 1988).
“A fair reading of NRS 533.450 does not support respondents’ assertion that such a burdensome notice requirement must be met simply to allow the exercise of jurisdiction.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.450(8) — 3 cases
In Re Nevada State Engr. Ruling No. 5823, 277 P.3d 449 (Nev. 2012).
“: NRS 533.450(1) affords judicial review "in the nature of an appeal" to "[a]ny person feeling aggrieved by any order or decision of the State [Water] Engineer .”
Churchill Cnty. v. State Eng'r, 277 P.3d 449 (Nev. 2012).
“; NRS 533.450(1) affords judicial review “in the nature of an appeal” to “[a]ny person feeling aggrieved by any order or decision of the State [Water] Engineer .”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.450(9) — 9 cases
United States v. State Eng'r, 27 P.3d 51 (Nev. 2001).
“See NRS 533.450(9). The United States asserts that the State Engineer erred because he went beyond the plain meaning of the statute in construing the statute.”
Town of Eureka v. Off. of the State Eng'r, 826 P.2d 948 (Nev. 1992).
“In August, 1989, the Town filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to NRS 533.450, arguing that the State Engineer erred in forfeiting that portion of the Town’s water rights.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.450(l) — 3 cases
Churchill Cnty. v. State Eng'r, 277 P.3d 449 (Nev. 2012).
“; NRS 533.450(1) affords judicial review “in the nature of an appeal” to “[a]ny person feeling aggrieved by any order or decision of the State [Water] Engineer .”
In Re Nevada State Engr. Ruling No. 5823, 277 P.3d 449 (Nev. 2012).
“: NRS 533.450(1) affords judicial review "in the nature of an appeal" to "[a]ny person feeling aggrieved by any order or decision of the State [Water] Engineer .”
Howell v. Ricci, 197 P.3d 1044 (Nev. 2008).
“5 Additionally, we stated that the final determination of the water rights occurred in 1944 “in accordance with then applicable notice and filing requirements” and that the Howells were thus procedurally barred from contesting PR’s permits pursuant to NRS 533.450’s requirement…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.