UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.
Digital Provenance
Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room
Publisher
University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries
Transcription
Los Angeles, July 27, 1937, a j k> ojL /L cla^.— (ruu*^ Bennett on vacation but Renwick advises as follows: Hevada condemnation statute provides: "Before property can be taken it must appear, i f already appropriated to some public use, that the public use to which i t is to be applied is a more necessary publio use", Nevada courts have never decided whether use by a city of water plant is more necessary public use than use of slime plant by private corporation. Nevada statute does not contain provision found in many state statutes that municipal use deemed more necessary use than use by public service corporation, but aside from such provision there is some authority in courts of other states that more public benefit is obtained from municipal use and therefore "more necessary public use". Nevada court might take this view but Renwick cannot say d efin itely without further research. Aside from above there is problem whether new property is devoted to public use. I f not can be condemned, although owned by Las Vegas Land and Water Company. Property is devoted to public use although not presently used i f acquired fo r necessary purpose and held in anticipation of future needs with bona fide intention of using fo r such purpose within reasonable time.
