NRS
233B.127 Licenses: Applicability of provisions governing contested cases
to grant, deny or renew; expiration notice and opportunity to show compliance
required before adverse action by agency; summary suspension.
1. The provisions of NRS 233B.121 to 233B.150, inclusive, do not apply to the
grant, denial or renewal of a license unless notice and opportunity for hearing
are required by law to be provided to the applicant before the grant, denial or
renewal of the license.
2. When a licensee has made timely and
sufficient application for the renewal of a license or for a new license with
reference to any activity of a continuing nature, the existing license does not
expire until the application has been finally determined by the agency and, in
case the application is denied or the terms of the new license limited, until
the last day for seeking review of the agency order or a later date fixed by
order of the reviewing court.
3. No revocation, suspension, annulment or
withdrawal of any license is lawful unless, before the institution of agency
proceedings, the agency gave notice by certified mail to the licensee of facts
or conduct which warrant the intended action, and the licensee was given an
opportunity to show compliance with all lawful requirements for the retention
of the license. If the agency finds that public health, safety or welfare
imperatively require emergency action, and incorporates a finding to that
effect in its order, summary suspension of a license may be ordered pending
proceedings for revocation or other action. An agency’s order of summary
suspension may be issued by the agency or by the Chair of the governing body of
the agency. If the order of summary suspension is issued by the Chair of the
governing body of the agency, the Chair shall not participate in any further
proceedings of the agency relating to that order. Proceedings relating to the
order of summary suspension must be instituted and determined within 45 days
after the date of the order unless the agency and the licensee mutually agree
in writing to a longer period.
(Added to NRS by 1967,
810; A 2005,
1002; 2007,
557; 2009,
651; 2015,
708)
Notes of Decisions
Buckwalter v. Nevada Board of Medical Examiners (2012)
ca9 · cites it 3×
“4 Nev.Rev.Stat. § 233B.127. Indeed, Buckwalter’s own experience demonstrates the parsimony of the procedural safeguards built into the summary suspension procedure.”
Private Investigator's Licensing Board v. Atherley (1982)
nev
“Instead, the district court has jurisdiction to review only “contested cases” in licensing matters. NRS 233B.130. 1 A “contested case” is defined as a proceeding in which the rights of a party are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for a hearing.”
Kevin Buckwalter v. State of Nevada Board (2012)
ca9 · cites it 4×
“4 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.127. Indeed, Buckwalter’s own experience demonstrates the par- simony of the procedural safeguards built into the summary suspension procedure.”
STATE, DEP'T OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV.'S VS. SAMANTHA INC. (2017)
nev · cites it 2×
“The Legislature codified this interpretation in the context of judicial review of licensing procedures 2 at NRS 233B.127 (2009), which provides Iwthen the grant, denial or renewal of a license is required to be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing, the provisions of…”
STATE, DEP'T OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV.'S VS. SAMANTHA INC. (2017)
nev
“The Legislature codified this interpretation in the context of judicial review of licensing procedures 2 at NRS 233B.127 (2009), which provides Iwthen the grant, denial or renewal of a license is required to be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing, the provisions of…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.127(1) — 1 case
Private Investigator's Licensing Board v. Atherley (1982)
nev
“Instead, the district court has jurisdiction to review only “contested cases” in licensing matters. NRS 233B.130. 1 A “contested case” is defined as a proceeding in which the rights of a party are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for a hearing.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.127(3) — 2 cases
Kevin Buckwalter v. State of Nevada Board (2012)
ca9
“4 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.127. Indeed, Buckwalter’s own experience demonstrates the par- simony of the procedural safeguards built into the summary suspension procedure.”
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.