With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to EDCR 1.48, which permits qualified judges to serve as masters and claims that the local rule does not unconstitutionally expand the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace. I disagree. Through EDCR 1.48, the district court allows a justice of the peace, by virtue of his or her status as a justice of the peace, to perform the duties granted to masters under NRS 3.245. In doing so, the court rule grants justices of the peace jurisdiction in felony cases that the Legislature has expressly denied them. To this extent, EDCR 1.48 expands the justice of the peace’s jurisdiction, and it is unconstitutional. As this court recently held in Hernandez v. Bennett-Haron, only the Legislature can expand the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace. 128 Nev. 580, 596, 287 P.3d 305, 316 (2012) (<HOLDING>); see also Nev. Const. art. 6, § 8 (“The

A: holding before the apa definition of person was amended to include county that the board of county commission ers of dolores county could not sue the state agency that had ordered reappraisals of real property in dolores county in connection with valuation for ad valorem taxation because the board of county commissioners was not a person under the apa and did not otherwise have authority to sue under statute or constitution
B: holding that by providing for the participation of justices of the peace in clark countys inquest proceedings  the clark county board of county commissioners has unconstitutionally impinged on the legislatures constitutionally delegated authority
C: holding that the county attorney had de facto authority and noting that the objection to the county attorneys authority was first made on appeal
D: holding that a forumselection clause was mandatory where it stated that for any action brought to enforce such terms and conditions venue shall lie exclusively in clark county washington
B.