With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". District Court, 107 Nev. 674, 818 P.2d 849 (1991). 6 Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 637 P.2d 534 (1981). 7 State of Nevada v. Dist. Ct. (Anzalone), 118 Nev. 140, 146-47, 42 P.3d 233, 237 (2002); NRS 34.320. 8 Harvey 6 Dayside Inc. v. Dist. Ct., 119 Nev. 404, 407, 75 P.3d 384, 386 (2003). 17 NRS 278.315(6). 18 NRS 278.3195(1). 19 McKay v. Bd. of Supervisors, 102 Nev. 644, 648, 730 P.2d 438, 441 (1986). 20 Id. at 649, 730 P.2d at 442; see also Beazer Homes Nevada, Inc. v. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 575, 582, 97 P.3d 1132, 1137 (2004). 21 2003 Nev. Stat., ch. 314, § 3, at 1734-35. 22 Hearing on A.B. 291 Before the Assembly Government Affairs Comm., 72d Leg. (Nev., March 28, 2003). 23 Id. 24 See generally Ronnow v. City of Las Vegas, 57 Nev. 332, 365, 65 P.2d 133, 145 (1937) (<HOLDING>). 25 North Las Vegas, Nev., Municipal Code §

A: recognizing a presumption of reasonableness
B: recognizing this presumption
C: holding that when two statutes are in conflict the more recent and specific statute should prevail so as to repeal the earlier general statute
D: recognizing that where express terms of repeal are not used the presumption is always against an intention to repeal an earlier statute unless there is such inconsistency or repugnancy between the statutes as to preclude the presumption or the later statute revises the whole subjectmatter of the former
D.