Opinion ID: 2518099
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Judicial record

Text: The record before the district court and this court indicates that the Taxpayers brought an appeal before the State Board complaining that the County Board failed to perform its duty of equalizing property valuations. However, the State Board declined to undertake any equalization process because the Taxpayers had neglected to file a petition for review with the County Board and, therefore, failed to adhere to the administrative procedures for equalization relief. As such, the State Board determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the Taxpayers' appeal or to proceed with the equalization process. While the Taxpayers claim the § 1983 action is based upon the State Board's refusal to equalize, nothing in the record supports that conclusion. See Carson Ready Mix v. First Nat'l Bk., 97 Nev. 474, 476, 635 P.2d 276, 277 (1981) (concluding that appellant bears the burden to make an adequate appellate record and noting that this court may not consider matters outside of the district court record on appeal); Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 603, 172 P.3d 131, 135 (2007) (stating that appellants are responsible for making an adequate appellate record and [w]hen an appellant fails to include necessary documentation in the record, we necessarily presume that the missing portion supports the district court's decision). In its written decision, the State Board stated that it found no record that the Taxpayer[s] requested the County Board for equalization relief or that the County Board took action to grant or deny equalization relief to the subject property as required by NRS 361.360(1). Accordingly, the State Board concluded that, [b]ased on the lack of a record made to or by the County Board with regard to request for relief, or that the County Board took action to grant or deny relief, the State Board did not accept jurisdiction to determine this matter. Even though the district court found that the State Board's decision to not equalize the Taxpayers' property valuations was incorrect, it was nevertheless a decision regarding the equalization process. Therefore, we must determine whether that decision and the equalization process in general are afforded absolute immunity.