State ex rel. List v. Douglas County, 8600

• Decision Date: 20 February 1976
• Docket Number: No. 8600,8600
• Citation: 92 Nev. 114,546 P.2d 235
• Parties: The STATE of Nevada ex rel. Robert LIST, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, Petitioner, v. The COUNTY OF DOUGLAS, a Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada, et al., Respondents.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

Page 235

546 P.2d 235

92 Nev. 114

The STATE of Nevada ex rel. Robert LIST, Attorney General of

the State of Nevada, Petitioner, v. The COUNTY OF DOUGLAS, a Political Subdivision of the State

of Nevada, et al., Respondents.

No. 8600.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

Feb. 20, 1976.

Rehearing Denied March 25, 1976.

Robert List, Atty. Gen., and James H. Thompson, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Carson City, for petitioner.

Howard D. McKibben, Dist. Atty. Douglas County, Minden, for respondent.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This original proceeding in mandamus, commenced by the Attorney General on behalf of the people of the State of Nevada, seeks to compel Douglas County to pay its current apportioned share of expenses to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, in order that the Agency may be assisted in carrying out its purposes and activities.

We previously entertained an identical proceeding wherein we ordered '. . . issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate to compel such payment.' State ex rel. List v. County of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 282, 524 P.2d 1271, 1277 (1974).

Notwithstanding the prior decision and mandate of the court Douglas County has again refused to pay its apportioned share of the expense.

In the answer to the instant petition, which was ordered pursuant to NRAP 21(b), Douglas County and its commissioners fail to present arguable cause against issuance of the writ; instead, they attempt to justify the failure to continue to comply with our prior decision by contending (1) the Agency is not furnishing the county with a proper accounting of all funds it receives, as required by Art. VII(c) of NRS 277.200; (2) the Agency is wrongfully paying funds into the State Retirement System; and (3) the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact (NRS 277.190 et seq.) is in contravention of both the Federal and State Constitutions.

1. In the posture of this proceeding, even if we assume the Agency has not furnished Douglas County the accounting contemplated by NRS 277.200, VII(c), such omission by the Agency neither justifies nor excuses the refusal by Douglas County to pay its apportioned share of the Agency budget. Various remedies are available to Douglas County to compel the Agency to comply with the provisions of NRS 277.200, VII(c), if indeed it has not previously done so.

2. The claim that the Agency is wrongfully paying funds into the State Retirement System is without merit. See NRS 277.200, IV(c), which provides that '(t)he agency may establish and maintain or participate...