49. Necessity
 
    1. (Deferred to trial court.)  The Virginia and Truckee Railroad Company v. Elliott, 5 Nev. 358, (1870) (#4)
 
    2. "The law does not contemplate that an 'absolute necessity' should exist for the identical lands sought to be condemned. The selection of any site for the purposes specified must necessarily, to some extent, be arbitrary."  Overman S.M. Co. v. Corcoran, 15 Nev. 147, 156 (1880) (#10)
 
    3. A legislative act declaring the necessity is the law of the land.  Godchaux v. Carpenter, 19 Nev. 415, 419 (1887) (#11)
 
    4. Clearly stated in Overman: fact that other lands are also available for the purpose does not negate necessity unless motive is unworthy or malicious. "It is the general rule that, when a corporation seeks to exercise the right of eminent domain, its discretion in the selection of land for its use will not be questioned where it acts in good faith and not capriciously."  Goldfield Con. v. O.S.A. Co., 38 Nev. 426, 445, 446, 150 P. 313 (1915) (#16)
 
    5. Available alternate route does not negate necessity where the land sought would offer a safer highway. "The word 'necessity...does not mean an absolute and unconditional necessity...." "The word 'necessity' must be deemed to mean a reasonable necessity under all of the circumstances of the particular case."  State v. Pinson, 66 Nev. 227, 231, 207 P.2d 1105 (1949) (#20)
 
    6. "largely in the (trial) court's discretion." Id. at 235 (#20)
 
    7. "It is well settled, however, that the choice of lands to be used for a particular public improvement generally lies within the discretion of the agency exercising the right of eminent domain and that such discretion will be respected save where malice or lack of good faith appears or where oppressive overreaching or public injury results."  Aeroville v. Lincoln Power, 71 Nev. 320, 325, 290 P.2d 970 (1955) (#25)
 
    8. "(T)he extremely narrow role of the courts in determining the issues of public use and necessity in condemnation cases has long been recognized in Nevada."  Urban Renewal Agcy. v. Iacometti, 79 Nev. 113, 120, 379 P.2d 466 (1963) (#35)