Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 233B - NEVADA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.122 (2026)

Certain members of agency prohibited from taking part in adjudication; replacement of disqualified officer

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 233B.122  Certain members of agency prohibited from taking part in adjudication; replacement of disqualified officer.

      1.  No agency member who acts as an investigator or prosecutor in any contested case may take any part in the adjudication of such case.

      2.  If an officer of an agency disqualifies himself or herself or is disqualified from participating in the adjudication of any contested case in which a decision will be rendered which is subject to judicial review, the officer shall send within 3 working days after the disqualification a notice of it to the authority which appointed him or her to the agency. The appointing authority shall within 5 working days after receiving the notice appoint a person to serve in the place of the disqualified officer only for the purpose of participating in the adjudication of the contested case.

      3.  The person appointed under subsection 2 shall have the same qualifications required by law of the officer whom the person replaces and is entitled to the same salary and per diem and travel expenses allowed to that officer.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 808; A 1977, 661)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2021 · leading case: City Plan Dev., Inc. v. Off. of the Labor Comm'r, 117 P.3d 182 (Nev. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City Plan Dev., Inc. v. Off. of the Labor Comm'r, 117 P.3d 182 (Nev. 2005). “in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of a party are required by law to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing, or in which an administrative penalty may be imposed.” NRS 233B.032. Together, NRS 607.”
Laman v. Nevada Real Est. Advisory Comm'n, 589 P.2d 166 (Nev. 1979). “There was, therefore, no violation of NRS 233B.122(1). 4 Appellant has demonstrated no improper commingling of judicial and prosecutorial functions violative of due process, or of Nevada’s Administrative Procedure Act.”
Potter v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 705 P.2d 132 (Nev. 1985). “See NRS 233B.122. 3 In its cross-appeal the Board appeals from the district court’s denial of its request for sanctions.”
State, Dep't of Motor Vehs. v. Thompson, 717 P.2d 580 (Nev. 1986). · cites it 2× “as a prosecutor in violation of NRS 233B.122. 1 *178 The district court agreed, with Thompson and held that as a matter of law the hearing officer acted improperly as a “prosecutor” in violation of NRS 233B.”
T.L. Townsend Builders, Llc Vs. Nev. State Contractors Bd. C/W 81185 (Nev. 2021). “3 Townco's matter,3 see NRS 233B.122(1) (providing that an agency prosecutor for a matter may not participate in the adjudication of that matter).”
T.L. Townsend Builders, Llc Vs. Nev. State Contractors Bd. C/W 81185 (Nev. 2021). “3 Townco's matter,3 see NRS 233B.122(1) (providing that an agency prosecutor for a matter may not participate in the adjudication of that matter).”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.122(1): 3 cases
Laman v. Nevada Real Est. Advisory Comm'n, 589 P.2d 166 (Nev. 1979). “There was, therefore, no violation of NRS 233B.122(1). 4 Appellant has demonstrated no improper commingling of judicial and prosecutorial functions violative of due process, or of Nevada’s Administrative Procedure Act.”
T.L. Townsend Builders, Llc Vs. Nev. State Contractors Bd. C/W 81185 (Nev. 2021). “3 Townco's matter,3 see NRS 233B.122(1) (providing that an agency prosecutor for a matter may not participate in the adjudication of that matter).”
T.L. Townsend Builders, Llc Vs. Nev. State Contractors Bd. C/W 81185 (Nev. 2021). “3 Townco's matter,3 see NRS 233B.122(1) (providing that an agency prosecutor for a matter may not participate in the adjudication of that matter).”
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.