Legal Opinion · Dissent

City of Las Vegas Downtown Redevelopment Agency v. Crockett

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 2001No. 27801, 27941, 29550Published

1DissentMaupin, C. J.

I cannot conclude that the district court erred in ruling that the vacation of streets and the relocation of a public park required formal amendment of the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Las Vegas Redevelopment Area.

The majority holds that formal amendment to a redevelopment plan is (1) mandated only for material deviations from, or changes to, a redevelopment plan; and (2) material changes to a plan do not include subsequent “administrative interpretation and filling in of details.” While I agree that a material change in a redevelopment plan stimulates the formal amendment process, I…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In Re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Old Omaha Ass'n v. City of OmahaNebraska Court of Appeals · 1994
  3. Paris v. Community Redevelopment AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API