*1 protect, education, and promote and support including colleges universities. Chrysler Sterling, Macomb Corp. Township M., County, (6th 1969). 410 F.2d Cir. We subscribe to these views. 361.157(l)(a)
3 .B. Relative to the of NRS exemption Chrysler Corp., circuit court agreed with the lower supra, court that the concession alone does not exemption standing result in unconstitutional discrimination to the Federal Gov- ernment or its contractors in to this respect exemption.
Other issues subsidiary raised have been care- reviewed fully and are found to be without merit.
We hold that the statutes are constitutional as applied that the taxes levied thereunder were proper.
Affirmed. JJ.,
Batjer, Mowbray, Thompson, Gunderson, con- cur. CANNON,
IVAN GARNER, DARYL B. and FORREST PURDY, Appellants, TAYLOR, v. WILLIAM L. C. Respondents. R. CLELAND, MYERS, and JOHN
No. 6367
February 23, 1972 (1971)] P.2d Cannon
[See Marshall, Hawley G. Vegas, of Las L. Earl and Edward Appellants. *2 Jr., Lovell, for Respondents.
Carl E. of Las Vegas, North OPINION ON REHEARING Per Curiam: was and this briefed appeal argued,
When counsel did not unaware, mention, thus court was the this state’s Attor- 14, 1967, had, on June ney General issued his No. 422, concerned, here and discussing enactment concluding:
“It is therefore of this that: office “1. Nevada, and 404 of Statutes Chapters of and out the salaries repealed wiped city of named officials in as of acts, effect the date of the and said passage approval of to-wit, April 1967.
“2. The acts established for the procedure setting of North Las City salaries Council and the new such once Vegas, Commissioners Las and salaries City were retroactive to April established against diminishing increasing “3. That the provision above designated of the officials in the acts salaries named bills, under the new referred to the salaries established not refer to salaries named offi- paid did previously (June 14, 1967). cials.” Gen. No. Op. Att’y binding While the court to their us, the members of adhere respective 400 of the concerning interpretation views of Chapter Statutes, all members of the court that the issu- agree ance and the council mem- opinion, thereon, originally bers’ reliance alter the result we must reached. See: Cannon v.
One of the duties of the General is to issue written officials, law to questions guide which opinions upon case he did at the properly request City Attorney of Las clear Vegas. NRS It appears 228.150.
General intended also to North City Attorney advise the Vegas, Las whose Council faced the same City problem; *3 cities, his covered both reaching same conclusion toas each. must assume that of North City Attorney We Las on this advice at least to when degree, relied some he to believe a increase permitted respondents accepting salary had been and would be proper.
However were entitled indirectly conveyed, city fathers advice, to rely to-wit: that Attorney they structure; a must enact new that they might properly so; increase their salaries when that such doing salaries 15, 1967; were to any increases in them be retroactive to April this, and that state law did not indeed preclude required but action them if were to be at by they legally all. As our paid reflects, majority a of this court opinion believe prior incorrect, Attorney General was but as said in State Fidelity (Ark. 1933), & Co. of 696 Deposit Maryland, S.W.2d which involved mistaken of payment “living expenses” follow, the state’s General: “It does by not approved however, that commissioners are liable for the erroneous Id., at 698. payments.” facts,
A case this kind must stand on its own but as a general government where officials are entitled proposition General, on of the state’s rely do rely to the damages gov- responsible good mistaken. General is if the serve body they ernmental State v. Maryland, supra; & Co. of Fidelity Deposit State v. 1936); & (Ark. Surety Standard 93 S.W.2d Broadaway, (10th F.2d 605 Cir. Oklahoma, 145 Co. v. State Casualty (N.D. 1962). Meier, 115 N.W.2d 1944); State cf. otherwise, few persons responsibility the rule “Were large in that capac- to serve willing be found would and perhaps sacrifice of time offices, requires which ity to the incumbent.” honor nor profit affords neither but money, at 699. Maryland, supra, Co. of & Fidelity Deposit State v. warrant application the facts of case believe We some increased fathers accepted enunciated. If just rule before issuance salary payments material; nor is this many, have been could not opinion, once established them “such salaries that told 1967,” and therefore theirs to April were retroactive and civic activities. and to utilize in their personal keep contend, our established does practice As appellants on raise new for the first time legal points litigant allow 330, 340 Re 75 Nev. P.2d 589 rehearing. Lorring, Cf. In (1959); denied, P.2d 156 rehearing however, that counsel has Here, we consider respondents’ fact, an veri- directed our attention to incontrovertible merely where we sit. Our building prece- records in fiable from it, favor of ignore do not us to who require appellants, dents we to their contention accept lost in the court below. Were record, be the result by such a fact must shown would still be incorrect. A gap reached our prior opinion record, revealed, would stand question, in the factual be entitled to a trial. Since there would which respondents *4 fact, as to this material there is no need of a no issue genuine trial to resolve it. NRCP views, the court adhere to their members of respective
The That with- opinion. as stated in our exactly prior reversal of the judgment drawn insofar as it ordered only the summary judgment entered lower court. The in favor by is, be, hereby must affirmed all respondents respects. J., D. Compton, concurring: reached the Court by I concur in the result but for today different reasons. the Court’s view, prior the as set forth in reasoning
In my facts, and the analysis is based on a sound decision the legisla- enunciated interpret rules of law therein properly 285, Cannon v. ture’s See: statutory intent. brought undue facts before weight upon The majority places at their by requested this for the first time respondents Court may relied on oral that have rehearing. respondents The fact the ofiice Attorney prior by representations is not sufficient to overturn of its opinion publication out that in It should be pointed earlier determination. Court’s on sub- rehearing, notably and authorities respondents’ points as attorney of North Las by City mitted set breakdown of facts is chronological for respondents, that chronology the Court. This indicates out as an aid to days former level 14 salary raised their from its respondents 451, while the Bills 450 and of Senate following adoption until No. 422 was issued and 46 1967, days following sixty adoption, June some me, had a new level. To salary after the fixed days respondents tenuous, on these facts is at best. reliance
However, by with rule stated agreement I am in as stand on own that “a case of this kind must its majority are government where officials general facts.” As proposition General, of the state’s on rely entitled damages rely good responsible and do serve if the General to the governmental body talk of dam- not a case wherein Although is mistaken. this is repayment rather it is one for ages is appropriate; improper compensation. for overturning there is a sound basis
In if my judgment, determination, argument it is on respondents’ earlier our are the doctrine of estopped by rehearing claim against respondents. asserting taxpayer’s laches from 29, 1967, established that on April respondents fact is The their at the time of election levels those set above and after a May period Subsequently office. their And as was complaint. filed years, appellants two almost decision, action suit “this class Court in its by prior noted day taxpayers, as by appellants, was instituted term office.” respondents’ before expiration funds, as well as other actions of municipal Expenditures councils, in local news- regularly published taken are by law, budgets and final fact, compiled proposed In papers. Knowledge NRS 354. councils must be by city published.
94 an is alleged wrong of appellants part notice on the a in delay bringing whether determining factor important Black, S.E. v. laches. Johnson action constitutes taxpayers’ notice; 63. Connelly, v. 348 P.2d Torgeson insufficient action, where the com- bringing taxpayers’ delay And or notice of knowledge implied express have plainants laches as to bar Conners situation, constitute such relief. may 742; 27 Am.Jur.2d Lowell, generally See N.E. Equity § case of the record of the reviewing
After sections pertinent bar, delayed valid reason why appellants at I can discern no dili- reasonably as filing nearly years. Appellants, suit for two notices knowledge are gent charged with taxpayers, course, delay to be for their benefit. Of required published itself, does constitute laches. There must however not long, As be therefrom. resulting also to the respondents prejudice indicated, acted in good has majority respondents date, them, and to return funds which at this late require (and at had in believed had earned good faith are justified which rates their office successors in paid) under the circumstances. when a void discovered The record reflects as however, level, had established an improper
respondents diligence” part appel- of “reasonable requirement Thus, delay my judgment, lants be disregarded. cannot as this under the facts circumstances magnitude record was fatal presents, appellants. summary order granting
I would affirm the trial court’s judgment. POLLARD, Appellant, FRANK
LEE A. ROLLA Respondents. SERVICE, BUTLER GIBBS CRANE
No. 6644 February P.2d