NRS
1.4655 Commencement of inquiry regarding alleged misconduct or
incapacity of judge; time limitation for considering complaints; certain action
required.
1. The Commission may begin an inquiry
regarding the alleged misconduct or incapacity of a judge upon the receipt of a
complaint.
2. The Commission shall not consider
complaints arising from acts or omissions that occurred more than 3 years
before the date of the complaint or more than 1 year after the complainant knew
or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known of the conduct,
whichever is earlier, except that:
(a) Where there is a continuing course of
conduct, the conduct will be deemed to have been committed at the termination
of the course of conduct;
(b) Where there is a pattern of recurring
judicial misconduct and at least one act occurs within the 3-year or 1-year
period, as applicable, the Commission may consider all prior acts or omissions
related to that pattern; and
(c) Any period in which the judge has concealed
or conspired to conceal evidence of misconduct is not included in the
computation of the time limit for the filing of a complaint pursuant to this
section.
3. Within 18 months after the receipt of a
complaint pursuant to this section, the Commission shall:
(a) Dismiss the complaint with or without a
letter of caution;
(b) Attempt to resolve the complaint informally
as required pursuant to NRS 1.4665;
(c) Enter into a deferred discipline agreement
pursuant to NRS 1.468;
(d) With the consent of the judge, impose
discipline on the judge pursuant to an agreement between the judge and the
Commission; or
(e) Authorize the filing of a formal statement of
the charges based on a finding that there is a reasonable probability that the
evidence available for introduction at a formal hearing could clearly and
convincingly establish grounds for disciplinary action.
(Added to NRS by 1997,
1088; A 2009,
1339)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 2007–2020 · leading case:
In re Halverson, 169 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2007).
In re Halverson, 169 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2007).
· cites it 3× “See NRS 1.4655 (authorizing the Commission’s investigation of alleged misconduct); NRS 1.”
Jones v. Nev. Comm'n on Jud. Discipline, 2014 NV 11 (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 4× “Commission violated procedural statutes and rules during the disciplinary investigation when it (1) proceeded with the investigation despite a complaint built on hearsay and unreliable evidence, (2) assigned a biased investigator and failed to restrict the investigator to…”
Clausen v. Dist. Ct. (City of Las Vegas) (Nev. 2015).
“Finally, Clausen's arguments regarding Judge Bare are inappropriately raised in a petition for extraordinary relief in this court, see NRS 1.4655(1) (providing that the Commission may begin an inquiry based upon a complaint), and appear to be made with the intent to harass and…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 1.4655(1) — 3 cases
In re Halverson, 169 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2007).
“See NRS 1.4655 (authorizing the Commission’s investigation of alleged misconduct); NRS 1.”
Jones v. Nev. Comm'n on Jud. Discipline, 2014 NV 11 (Nev. 2014).
“Commission violated procedural statutes and rules during the disciplinary investigation when it (1) proceeded with the investigation despite a complaint built on hearsay and unreliable evidence, (2) assigned a biased investigator and failed to restrict the investigator to…”
Clausen v. Dist. Ct. (City of Las Vegas) (Nev. 2015).
“Finally, Clausen's arguments regarding Judge Bare are inappropriately raised in a petition for extraordinary relief in this court, see NRS 1.4655(1) (providing that the Commission may begin an inquiry based upon a complaint), and appear to be made with the intent to harass and…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 1.4655(1)(a) — 1 case
In re Halverson, 169 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2007).
“See NRS 1.4655 (authorizing the Commission’s investigation of alleged misconduct); NRS 1.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 1.4655(3)(e) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.