(analogously recognizing and providing a “procedure when [an unadjudicated] stream system [is located] in two or more judicial districts,” which is that the judges of the different courts shall decide which will be the decree court). Such an approach is consistent with the language in NRS 533.450(l)’s forum clause (the “proper court of the county” where “the matters affected or a portion thereof are situated”), which speaks the language of venue, see NRS 13.010(2) (addressing venue in terms of “the county in which the subject of the action, or some part thereof, is situated”); NRS 13.050 (“[i]f the county designated ... be not the proper county,” venue may be changed), rather than that of subject matter jurisdiction. Landreth v. Malik, 127 Nev. 175, 180-81, 251 P.3d 163, 168-69 (2011) (<HOLDING>). It also comports with the position taken by
holding interactive website did not create general jurisdiction holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts holding that the circuit courts have no appellate jurisdiction over a general district courts review of an administrative license suspension in the absence of any statutory authority vesting them with such jurisdiction holding that nev const art 6  61 vests general jurisdiction in all district court judges equally and rejecting the argument that the legislature can create family courts as district courts of limited not general jurisdiction holding appellate courts have jurisdiction over the district courts orders rejecting as a matter of law qualified immunity raised in a motion to dismiss