to stand even though the City Council never allowed for an effective appeal period, the majority’s resolution impinges on not only Davis’s and Check City’s rights, but also the rights of any other person who relied on the City Council’s “settled practice” of permitting only one appeal to be filed. As the City Council’s unlawful practice prejudiced the rights of everyone interested in the matter, the remedy ther , 509 (1911) (pointing out that acts made in excess of authority are void). 2 See North Las Vegas, Nev., Municipal Code § 17.28.050(C)(3)(a) (providing that a planning commission decision becomes final eight days after it is issued, unless an administrative appeal is filed). 3 See generally Nevada Pub. Emp. Ret. Bd. v. Byrne, 96 Nev. 276, 280, 607 P.2d 1351, 1353-54 (1980) (<HOLDING>). 4 See NRS 34.160 (providing that a writ of
recognizing that courts of equity do not have any right or power to issue such orders as they consider to be in the best interest of social justice at the particular moment without regard to established law holding that zoning boards of appeal do not have the inherent power to grant a rehearing recognizing that a citizen has a legitimate expectation that the government should deal fairly with him or her that thus the governing body should not give inaccurate or misleading advice to the public and that when they do courts have inherent power to seek and to do equity recognizing the inherent power of the courts to issue warrants recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals