44. Legislative authorization
 
    1. To exercise eminent domain, an entity need not be a specifically delegated condemnation authority, at least where the entity, such as a homeowners' association, is charged with maintaining and improving the roadways within the community. "Once the public purpose was established, the power of the private company to condemn the property for that purpose was recognized, even though the statute did not expressly state that a private company was authorized to exercise such power."  Glenbrook Homeowners v. Pettitt, 112 Nev. 783, 919 P.2d 1061 (1996)

[Editor's note: This is an extraordinary decision. We're talking here of the sovereign power of eminent domain, which now requires no legislative authorization in Nevada. For the judicial branch to put it up for grabs like this borders on a separation of powers violation. How do we now defer to the discretion of condemning "authorities" in findings of public use and necessity? Why should governmental agencies be bound by legislative strictures, while your neighbor can now condemn your property without any? I don't expect this to go beyond contractual arrangements like CC&Rs, but this case is already too far in itself and begs for legislative correction.] [Since this was written, the Nevada legislature has nullified this decision.]