NRS
1.4657 Required actions upon receipt of complaint; letter of caution.
1. The Commission shall, in accordance
with its procedural rules, examine each complaint that it receives to determine
whether the complaint alleges objectively verifiable evidence from which a
reasonable inference could be drawn that a judge committed misconduct or is
incapacitated.
2. If the Commission determines that a
complaint does not contain such allegations, the Commission shall dismiss the
complaint with or without a letter of caution. A letter of caution is not a
form of discipline. The Commission may consider a letter of caution when
deciding the appropriate action to be taken on a subsequent complaint against a
judge unless the letter of caution is not relevant to the misconduct alleged in
the subsequent complaint.
3. If the Commission determines that a
complaint does contain such allegations, the Commission shall authorize further
investigation.
(Added to NRS by 1997,
1089; A 2009,
1340)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2007–2022 · leading case:
In re Halverson, 169 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2007).
In re Halverson, 169 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2007).
“4655 (authorizing the Commission’s investigation of alleged misconduct); NRS 1.4657(1) (explaining that the Commission must further investigate complaints that, if true, establish grounds for discipline); NRS 1.”
Andress-Tobiasson (Melanie) Vs. Nev. Comm'N On Jud. Discipline, 475 P.3d 776 (Nev. 2020).
· cites it 2× “Investigations and resulting FSC Petitioner argues that the Commission violated NRS 1.4657 and NRS 1.4663 by authorizing two investigations of complaints that she asserts fail to allege objectively verifiable evidence from which a reasonable inference may be drawn that she…”
Shahrokhi v. Nev. Comm'N On Jud. Discipline (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Petitioner argues that the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline was required to take action to open a formal investigation into Judge Thorne under NRS 1.4657(1) because, according to petitioner, Judge Thorne committed perjury.”
Jones v. Nev. Comm'n on Jud. Discipline, 2014 NV 11 (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 2× “4663(1) (requiring that the "complaint contain[ allegations which, if true, would establish grounds for discipline"); see NRS 1.4657 and NRS 1.4663 (as amended in 2009) (both requiring the Commission to• determine that the "complaint alleges objectively verifiable evidence from…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 1.4657(1) — 2 cases
In re Halverson, 169 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2007).
“4655 (authorizing the Commission’s investigation of alleged misconduct); NRS 1.4657(1) (explaining that the Commission must further investigate complaints that, if true, establish grounds for discipline); NRS 1.”
Shahrokhi v. Nev. Comm'N On Jud. Discipline (Nev. 2022).
“Petitioner argues that the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline was required to take action to open a formal investigation into Judge Thorne under NRS 1.4657(1) because, according to petitioner, Judge Thorne committed perjury.”
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.