NRS
1.467 Finding of whether reasonable probability of grounds for
disciplinary action exists required; letter of caution; deferred discipline
agreement; procedure when reasonable probability is found to exist.
1. After a judge responds to the complaint
as required pursuant to NRS 1.4667, the
Commission shall make a finding of whether there is a reasonable probability
that the evidence available for introduction at a formal hearing could clearly
and convincingly establish grounds for disciplinary action against the judge.
2. If the Commission finds that such a
reasonable probability does not exist, the Commission shall dismiss the
complaint with or without a letter of caution. 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 caution is not relevant to the
misconduct alleged in the subsequent complaint.
3. If the Commission finds that such a
reasonable probability exists, but reasonably believes that the misconduct
would be addressed more appropriately through rehabilitation, treatment,
education or minor corrective action, the Commission may enter into a deferred
discipline agreement with the judge for a definite period as described in NRS 1.468.
4. The Commission shall not dismiss a
complaint with a letter of caution or enter into a deferred discipline
agreement with a judge if:
(a) The misconduct of the judge involves the
misappropriation of money, dishonesty, deceit, fraud, misrepresentation or a
crime that adversely reflects on the honesty, trustworthiness or fitness of the
judge;
(b) The misconduct of the judge resulted or will
likely result in substantial prejudice to a litigant or other person;
(c) The misconduct of the judge is part of a
pattern of similar misconduct; or
(d) The misconduct of the judge is of the same
nature as misconduct for which the judge has been publicly disciplined or which
was the subject of a deferred discipline agreement entered into by the judge
within the immediately preceding 5 years.
5. If the Commission finds that such a
reasonable probability exists and that formal proceedings are warranted, the
Commission shall, in accordance with its procedural rules, designate special
counsel to sign under oath and file with the Commission a formal statement of
charges against the judge.
6. Within 20 days after service of the
formal statement of charges, the judge shall file an answer with the Commission
under oath. If the judge fails to answer the formal statement of charges within
that period, the Commission shall deem such failure to be an admission that the
charges set forth in the formal statement:
(a) Are true; and
(b) Establish grounds for discipline pursuant to NRS 1.4653.
7. The Commission shall adopt rules
regarding disclosure and discovery after the filing of a formal statement of
charges.
8. By leave of the Commission, a statement
of formal charges may be amended at any time, before the close of the hearing,
to allege additional matters discovered in a subsequent investigation or to
conform to proof presented at the hearing if the judge has adequate time, as
determined by the Commission, to prepare a defense.
(Added to NRS by 1997,
1090; A 2009,
1343)
Notes of Decisions
In re Halverson, 169 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2007).
· cites it 5× “See NRS 1.467 (providing for the filing of a formal statement of charges, a judge’s response, and a formal public hearing).”
In Re: Jud. Discipline of Rena Hughes, 2020 NV 46 (Nev. 2020).
· cites it 2× “The Commission also erred in interpreting Judge Hughes orders, relying disciplinary letter of caution, warning Judge Hughes of the need to more closely supervise the clerk in the preparation of the minutes so that the minutes entered do not suggest that the court has held a…”
Salman v. Nevada Comm'n on Jud. Discipline, 104 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (D. Nev. 2000).
“4693, all proceedings of the commission must remain confidential until the commission makes a determination pursuant to NRS 1.467 and the prosecuting attorney files a formal statement of charges.”
Jones v. Nev. Comm'n on Jud. Discipline, 2014 NV 11 (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 4× “4667; NRS 1.467. The Commission would then reconsider the matter in light of the judge's response and either dismiss the complaint or direct a prosecuting attorney to file a formal statement of charges, in prelude to a formal, public hearing on the charges, NRS 1.”
Andress-Tobiasson (Melanie) v. Nev. Comm'n on Jud. Discipline (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Following this initial determination, and as part of the Commission's inquiry into whether to file a formal statement of charges, see NRS 1.467(1), the Commission required Andress-Tobiasson to respond to the complaint against her.”
Andress-Tobiasson (Melanie) v. Nev. Comm'n on Jud. Discipline (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Following this initial determination, and as part of the Commission's inquiry into whether to file a formal statement of charges, see NRS 1.467(1), the Commission required Andress-Tobiasson to respond to the complaint against her.”
Andress-Tobiasson (Melanie) Vs. Nev. Comm'N On Jud. Discipline, 475 P.3d 776 (Nev. 2020).
“4683 (requiring that Commission proceedings remain confidential until the Commission makes a "reasonable probability" finding under NRS 1.467 and special counsel files a FSC) and has disregarded Commission Procedural Rule 7, which provides: In any case in which the subject…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 1.467(1) — 4 cases
In re Halverson, 169 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2007).
“See NRS 1.467 (providing for the filing of a formal statement of charges, a judge’s response, and a formal public hearing).”
Andress-Tobiasson (Melanie) v. Nev. Comm'n on Jud. Discipline (Nev. 2019).
“Following this initial determination, and as part of the Commission's inquiry into whether to file a formal statement of charges, see NRS 1.467(1), the Commission required Andress-Tobiasson to respond to the complaint against her.”
Andress-Tobiasson (Melanie) v. Nev. Comm'n on Jud. Discipline (Nev. 2019).
“Following this initial determination, and as part of the Commission's inquiry into whether to file a formal statement of charges, see NRS 1.467(1), the Commission required Andress-Tobiasson to respond to the complaint against her.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 1.467(2) — 2 cases
In re Halverson, 169 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2007).
“See NRS 1.467 (providing for the filing of a formal statement of charges, a judge’s response, and a formal public hearing).”
In Re: Jud. Discipline of Rena Hughes, 2020 NV 46 (Nev. 2020).
“The Commission also erred in interpreting Judge Hughes orders, relying disciplinary letter of caution, warning Judge Hughes of the need to more closely supervise the clerk in the preparation of the minutes so that the minutes entered do not suggest that the court has held a…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 1.467(3) — 1 case
In re Halverson, 169 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2007).
“See NRS 1.467 (providing for the filing of a formal statement of charges, a judge’s response, and a formal public hearing).”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 1.467(3)(a) — 2 cases
In re Halverson, 169 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2007).
“See NRS 1.467 (providing for the filing of a formal statement of charges, a judge’s response, and a formal public hearing).”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 1.467(6) — 2 cases
Andress-Tobiasson (Melanie) v. Nev. Comm'n on Jud. Discipline (Nev. 2019).
“Following this initial determination, and as part of the Commission's inquiry into whether to file a formal statement of charges, see NRS 1.467(1), the Commission required Andress-Tobiasson to respond to the complaint against her.”
Andress-Tobiasson (Melanie) v. Nev. Comm'n on Jud. Discipline (Nev. 2019).
“Following this initial determination, and as part of the Commission's inquiry into whether to file a formal statement of charges, see NRS 1.467(1), the Commission required Andress-Tobiasson to respond to the complaint against her.”
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.