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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.125

Adverse decision or order required to be in writing or stated on record; contents of final decision; standard of proof; notice and copies of decisions and orders

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 233B.125  Adverse decision or order required to be in writing or stated on record; contents of final decision; standard of proof; notice and copies of decisions and orders.  A decision or order adverse to a party in a contested case must be in writing or stated in the record. Except as provided in subsection 5 of NRS 233B.121, a final decision must include findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately stated. Findings of fact and decisions must be based upon a preponderance of the evidence. Findings of fact, if set forth in statutory language, must be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings. If, in accordance with agency regulations, a party submitted proposed findings of fact before the commencement of the hearing, the decision must include a ruling upon each proposed finding. Parties must be notified either personally or by certified mail of any decision or order. Upon request a copy of the decision or order must be delivered or mailed forthwith to each party and to the party’s attorney of record.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 809; A 1985, 351; 2015, 708)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case: Dickinson v. American Medical Response
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dickinson v. American Medical Response (2008) nev · cites it 5× “As set forth in Nevada’s Administrative Procedure Act at NRS 233B.125, the appeals officer’s final decision must include findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately stated.”
Elizondo v. Hood Machine, Inc. (2013) nev · cites it 3× “The appeals officer’s order failed to meet the statutory requirements of NRS 233B.125 Elizondo argues that the appeals officer’s order fails to meet the statutory requirements of NRS 233B.”
Law Offices of Barry Levinson, P.C. v. Milko (2008) nev · cites it 2× “150(2) presumption but failed to specifically state the reasons for her conclusion as required by NRS 233B.125. 39 See Langman v.”
Revert v. Ray (1979) nev · cites it 2× “1969); see also NRS 233B.125. When these procedures, grounded in basic notions of fairness and due process, are not followed, and the resulting administrative decision is arbitrary, oppressive, or accompanied by a manifest abuse of discretion, this court will not hesitate to…”
City Plan Development, Inc. v. Office of the Labor Commissioner (2005) nev “121(8); NRS 233B.125. 27 See generally NRS 338.”
State Ex Rel. Sweikert v. Briare (1978) nev · cites it 2× “Appellant further challenges the findings of fact entered by the Civil Service Board contending the findings are in violation of NRS 233B.125 pertaining to explicit statements of fact.”
State, Department of Commerce, Real Estate Division v. Hyt (1980) nev · cites it 4× “According to NRS 233B.125 a decision “shall be in writing or stated in the record.”
Southern Nevada Memorial Hospital v. State (1985) nev · cites it 2× “A hearing was conducted on July 8, 1981, and on July 17, 1981, Salo issued his decision vacating all of DiSibio’s decisions and remanding them back to the Director of the Department to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with NRS 233B.125. 3 *390…”
Bailey v. State (1979) nev “1 NRS 233B.125, in pertinent part, reads: “A decision or order adverse to a party in a contested case shall be in writing or stated in the record.”
State Board of Psychological Examiners v. Norman (1984) nev · cites it 3× “NRS 233B.125 of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that a final decision shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately stated.”
Gray Line Tours v. Public Service Commission (1981) nev “Grayline admits that the PSC is not bound by the doctrine of stare decisis, but argues that under NRS 233B.125 1 the PSC was required to give an explanation for its “change in policy.”
NEV. STATE BD. OF ARCHITECTURE VS. DIST. CT. (RUSK) (2019) nev · cites it 6× “A petition for judicial review may not precede the administrative agency decision it contests, and the agency decision must satisfy NRS 233B.125 in order to constitute a decision subject to judicial review.”
Show all 30 citing cases →
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.