# Garvin v. Ninth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada

> Nevada Supreme Court · December 17, 2002 · 118 Nev. 749

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8045664

## Case

- **Full name:** JOHN GARVIN, an Individual JUDY STURGIS, an Individual GARY PYLE, an Individual JAMES SLADE, an Individual and PATRICIA A. McKAY-TIMM, an Individual v. THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, in and for THE COUNTY OF DOUGLAS, and THE HONORABLE DAVID R. GAMBLE, District Judge, and NEVADA NORTHWEST, LLC, a Limited Liability Company DOUGLAS COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada DOUGLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS and BARBARA REED, in Her Capacity as the Douglas County Clerk, Real Parties in Interest
- **Court:** Nevada Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 17, 2002
- **Citations:** 118 Nev. 749; 118 Nev. Adv. Rep. 76; 59 P.3d 1180; 2002 Nev. LEXIS 90
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Maupin
- **Judges:** Maupin
- **Cited by:** 37 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8045664

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that our ballot initiative law holds individual land use decisions to be non-legislative and hence not appropriate for direct democratic vote
- noting that our ballot initiative law holds individual land use decisions to be nonlegislative and hence not appropriate for direct democratic vote
- declining to address arguments related to an initiative's substantive validity during preelection review, but noting that parties could challenge the substantive validity of the legislation after it was enacted
- holding that "[if] a city council can enact zoning legislation, the county and city voters can do the same by initiative"

## Opinion text

Maupin, J.,
concurring:
I join in the result reached by the majority, with the following qualifications. First, because of my disqualification in Citizens for Train Trench Vote v. Reno, 1 I am not in a position to “reaffirm’ ’ that decision. Second, I stand by my separate opinion in Glover v. Concerned Citizens for Fuji Park, 2 and thus do not reaffirm the majority decision in that case.
I also want to separately comment upon the fact that we have not addressed the substantive validity of the sustainable growth initiative, which the real parties in interest have raised in their response to the instant petition. Because the petition was brought as a pre-election challenge, we have only resolved the threshold question of whether the initiative belonged on the ballot. Although the measure was approved by the voters of Douglas County while the instant petition was pending before us, we have deferred ruling on the substantive viability of the initiative until separate litigation is brought in response to its actual enforcement.
118 Nev. 574 , 53 P.3d 387 (2002).
118 Nev. 488 , 50 P.3d 546 (2002).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8045664. Public record. Not legal advice.