“judge shopping” and dilatory tactics. Id. The District contends that the Tribe was not entitled to a change of judge as a matter of right because the Tribe’s motion for peremptory challenge: (1) was filed in an action that had been appealed from a lower court; and (2) was filed against a judge who had made a prior ruling on contested matters in this case. We consider each contention in turn. A. Appeal from a lower court The District contends that the office of the Engineer is a lower court because it acts as the exclusive trier of fact in water appropriation cases. Indeed, the district court is required to give deference to the Engineer’s decision and only conducts a de novo review of legal conclusions. See State Engineer v. Morris, 107 Nev. 699, 701, 819 P.2d 203, 205 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, NRS 533.450(1) describes the
holding review of sufficiency of evidence of juvenile adjudication is same as reviewing substantial evidence to support a criminal conviction holding that the findings of reviewing physicians constituted substantial evidence in support of the secretarys decision to deny benefits holding that reviewing court may consider trial evidence in reviewing denial of motion to suppress holding that a reviewing court is not to substitute its decision for that of the board holding that reviewing courts will review the engineers decision for substantial evidence