Nevada Revised Statutes
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.125 (2026)
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
✓ current as of July 2026
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. Am. Med. Response, 186 P.3d 878 (Nev. 2008).
Dickinson v. Am. Med. Response, 186 P.3d 878 (Nev. 2008). “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 Mach., Inc., 312 P.3d 479 (Nev. 2013). “Furthermore, Elizondo asserts that the order fails to support its final determination by applying the facts to the law.”
Law Offices of Barry Levinson, P.C. v. Milko, 184 P.3d 378 (Nev. 2008). “150(2) presumption but failed to specifically state the reasons for her conclusion as required by NRS 233B.125. 39 See Langman v. Nevada Administrators, Inc.”
Revert v. Ray, 603 P.2d 262 (Nev. 1979). “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 Dev., Inc. v. Off. of the Labor Comm'r, 117 P.3d 182 (Nev. 2005). “121(8); NRS 233B.125. 27 See generally NRS 338.050 (providing that public works project employees are governed by the prevailing wage laws, regardless of the existence of any other contractual employment relationship).”
State Ex Rel. Sweikert v. Briare, 588 P.2d 542 (Nev. 1978). “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, Dep't of Com., Real Est. Div. v. Hyt, 611 P.2d 1096 (Nev. 1980). “We must determine what constitutes a decision by the Commission from which a licensee has ten days to appeal under NRS 645.”
S. Nevada Mem'l Hosp. v. State, 705 P.2d 139 (Nev. 1985). “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, 594 P.2d 734 (Nev. 1979). “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 Bd. of Psychological Examiners v. Norman, 679 P.2d 1263 (Nev. 1984). “Consequently, we conclude that the procedures followed by the Board could not and did not effect a revocation of Norman’s certificate.”
Gray Line Tours v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 626 P.2d 263 (Nev. 1981). “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 NV 49 (Nev. 2019). “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.”
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.