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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.123

Evidence

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 233B.123  Evidence.  In contested cases:

      1.  Irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious evidence must be excluded. Evidence may be admitted, except where precluded by statute, if it is of a type commonly relied upon by reasonable and prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs. Agencies shall give effect to the rules of privilege recognized by law. Objections to evidentiary offers may be made and must be noted in the record. Subject to the requirements of this subsection, when a hearing will be expedited and the interests of the parties will not be prejudiced substantially, any part of the evidence may be received in written form.

      2.  Documentary evidence may be received in the form of authenticated copies or excerpts. Upon request, parties must be given an opportunity to compare the copy with the original.

      3.  Every witness shall declare, by oath or affirmation, that he or she will testify truthfully.

      4.  Each party may call and examine witnesses, introduce exhibits, cross-examine opposing witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues even though the matter was not covered in the direct examination, impeach any witness, regardless of which party first called the witness to testify, and rebut the evidence against him or her.

      5.  Notice may be taken of judicially cognizable facts and of generally recognized technical or scientific facts within the specialized knowledge of the agency. Parties must be notified either before or during the hearing, or by reference in preliminary reports or otherwise, of the material noticed, including any staff memoranda or data, and they must be afforded an opportunity to contest the material so noticed. The experience, technical competence and specialized knowledge of the agency may be utilized in the evaluation of the evidence.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 808; A 1977, 57; 1997, 1603; 2015, 707)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1970–2022 · leading case: Andrews v. Nevada State Board of Cosmetology
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Andrews v. Nevada State Board of Cosmetology (1970) nev · cites it 6× “During the Fifty-fourth Session of the Legislature, in 1967, when NRS 233B.123, supra, was enacted, the Legislature in that session and at that time granted subpoena power to the following State administrative agencies: (1) State Department of Agriculture, NRS 561.”
Bivins Construction v. State Contractors' Board (1991) nev · cites it 3× “NRS 233B.123(4) [2] expressly permits cross-examination on any matter, even where such matter was not covered in direct examination.”
State, Department of Motor Vehicles v. Vezeris (1986) nev “Also, pursuant to NRS 233B.123(4), 5 a driver has the right to call any witnesses; therefore, if he feels that an affidavit is suspect, he can demand the presence of the affiant.”
State, Department of Motor Vehicles v. Bremer (1997) nev · cites it 2× “As support for this proposition, the DMV notes that NRS 233B.123 relaxes the evidentiary rules in administrative hearings and that findings of fact are sustainable via substantial evidence only.”
Southwest Gas Corp. v. Woods (1992) nev “” NRS 233B.123(4). We have previously held: It has been a long-standing policy of this Court to liberally construe such laws to protect injured workers and their families.”
United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co. (1996) nvd “§ 233B.123(5). Groundwater development is not directly impacted by this decision.”
State, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety v. Evans (1998) nev “We further confirmed that the hearsay was expressly admissible in the administrative revocation proceeding under NRS 233B.123(1) 5 because, under the circumstances, the evidence consisting of the first officer’s statement to the second officer was of a type commonly relied upon…”
PUBLIC SERV. COM'N v. Eighth Jud. D. Ct. (1991) nev “Although the commission must initially determine, in the course of a proceeding before it, whether a privilege exists and whether it may be asserted, NRS 233B.123(1), the decisions of the Commission are subject to judicial review following a final determination of an action.”
VALENTI VS. STATE, DEPT. OF MOTOR VEHICLES (2015) nev · cites it 4× “In arriving at our Cramer holdings, we noted that in accordance with NRS 233B.123(4), "a defendant in an administrative proceeding is entitled to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him.”
Lau v. City Of Las Vegas (2022) nev · cites it 2× “, NRS 233B.123 (providing that in regards to a hearing subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, "[p]arties must be notified either before or during the hearing .”
Nassiri v. Chiropractic Physicians' Bd. (2014) nev · cites it 2× “Although administrative proceedings typically need not strictly follow the rules of evidence, see NRS 233B.123(1) (allowing the admittance of evidence during administrative proceedings "except where precluded by statute, if it is of a type commonly relied upon by reasonable and…”
VALENTI VS. STATE, DEPT. OF MOTOR VEHICLES (2015) nev · cites it 2× “In arriving at our Cramer holdings, we noted that in accordance with NRS 233B.123(4), "a defendant in an administrative proceeding is entitled to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.123(1) — 3 cases
State, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety v. Evans (1998) nev “We further confirmed that the hearsay was expressly admissible in the administrative revocation proceeding under NRS 233B.123(1) 5 because, under the circumstances, the evidence consisting of the first officer’s statement to the second officer was of a type commonly relied upon…”
PUBLIC SERV. COM'N v. Eighth Jud. D. Ct. (1991) nev “Although the commission must initially determine, in the course of a proceeding before it, whether a privilege exists and whether it may be asserted, NRS 233B.123(1), the decisions of the Commission are subject to judicial review following a final determination of an action.”
Nassiri v. Chiropractic Physicians' Bd. (2014) nev “Although administrative proceedings typically need not strictly follow the rules of evidence, see NRS 233B.123(1) (allowing the admittance of evidence during administrative proceedings "except where precluded by statute, if it is of a type commonly relied upon by reasonable and…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.123(3) — 2 cases
Andrews v. Nevada State Board of Cosmetology (1970) nev “During the Fifty-fourth Session of the Legislature, in 1967, when NRS 233B.123, supra, was enacted, the Legislature in that session and at that time granted subpoena power to the following State administrative agencies: (1) State Department of Agriculture, NRS 561.”
Ross Vs. State, Emp'T Sec. Div. (2021) nev
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.123(4) — 6 cases
Bivins Construction v. State Contractors' Board (1991) nev “NRS 233B.123(4) [2] expressly permits cross-examination on any matter, even where such matter was not covered in direct examination.”
State, Department of Motor Vehicles v. Vezeris (1986) nev “Also, pursuant to NRS 233B.123(4), 5 a driver has the right to call any witnesses; therefore, if he feels that an affidavit is suspect, he can demand the presence of the affiant.”
Southwest Gas Corp. v. Woods (1992) nev “” NRS 233B.123(4). We have previously held: It has been a long-standing policy of this Court to liberally construe such laws to protect injured workers and their families.”
VALENTI VS. STATE, DEPT. OF MOTOR VEHICLES (2015) nev “In arriving at our Cramer holdings, we noted that in accordance with NRS 233B.123(4), "a defendant in an administrative proceeding is entitled to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him.”
VALENTI VS. STATE, DEPT. OF MOTOR VEHICLES (2015) nev “In arriving at our Cramer holdings, we noted that in accordance with NRS 233B.123(4), "a defendant in an administrative proceeding is entitled to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.123(5) — 1 case
United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co. (1996) nvd “§ 233B.123(5). Groundwater development is not directly impacted by this decision.”
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.