NRS
233B.130 Judicial review; requirements for petition and cross-petition;
statement of intent to participate; petition for rehearing or reconsideration;
service; dismissal of certain agencies and persons from proceedings concerning
final decision of State Contractors’ Board; exclusive means.
1. Any party who is:
(a) Identified as a party of record by an agency
in an administrative proceeding; and
(b) Aggrieved by a final decision in a contested
case,
Ê is entitled
to judicial review of the decision. Where appeal is provided within an agency,
only the decision at the highest level is reviewable unless a decision made at
a lower level in the agency is made final by statute. Any preliminary, procedural
or intermediate act or ruling by an agency in a contested case is reviewable if
review of the final decision of the agency would not provide an adequate
remedy.
2. Petitions for judicial review must:
(a) Name as respondents the agency and all
parties of record to the administrative proceeding;
(b) Be instituted by filing a petition in the
district court in and for Carson City, in and for the county in which the
aggrieved party resides or in and for the county where the agency proceeding
occurred;
(c) Be served upon:
(1) The Attorney General, or a person
designated by the Attorney General, at the Office of the Attorney General in
Carson City; and
(2) The person serving in the office of
administrative head of the named agency; and
(d) Be filed within 30 days after service of the
final decision of the agency.
Ê
Cross-petitions for judicial review must be filed within 10 days after service
of a petition for judicial review.
3. The agency and any party desiring to
participate in the judicial review must file a statement of intent to
participate in the petition for judicial review and serve the statement upon
the agency and every party within 20 days after service of the petition.
4. A petition for rehearing or
reconsideration must be filed within 15 days after the date of service of the
final decision. An order granting or denying the petition must be served on all
parties at least 5 days before the expiration of the time for filing the
petition for judicial review. If the petition is granted, the subsequent order
shall be deemed the final order for the purpose of judicial review.
5. The petition for judicial review and
any cross-petitions for judicial review must be served upon the agency and
every party within 45 days after the filing of the petition, unless, upon a
showing of good cause, the district court extends the time for such service. If
the proceeding involves a petition for judicial review or cross-petition for
judicial review of a final decision of the State Contractors’ Board, the
district court may, on its own motion or the motion of a party, dismiss from
the proceeding any agency or person who:
(a) Is named as a party in the petition for
judicial review or cross-petition for judicial review; and
(b) Was not a party to the administrative
proceeding for which the petition for judicial review or cross-petition for
judicial review was filed.
6. The provisions of this chapter are the
exclusive means of judicial review of, or judicial action concerning, a final
decision in a contested case involving an agency to which this chapter applies.
(Added to NRS by 1965,
966; A 1969,
318; 1975,
495; 1977,
57; 1981,
80; 1989,
1651; 1991,
465; 2003,
1904; 2005,
1003; 2007,
558; 2015,
709)
Notes of Decisions
WHITFIELD VS. NEV. STATE PERS. COMM'N (2021)
nev · cites it 84×
“The court held that (1) Whitfield's original petition did not comply with NRS 233B.130 because he "failed to name any respondent in the caption or the body" and (2) the amended petition was not filed within 30 days after the agency's final decision as required by NRS 233B.”
Washoe County v. Otto (2012)
nev · cites it 11×
“Otto and V Park, LLC (collectively, Otto), filed a motion to dismiss Washoe County’s petition for judicial review on two grounds: (1) Washoe County lacked standing under NRS 233B.130 to bring the petition because it was not a “party of record” to the State Board’s proceeding,…”
Prevost v. State (2018)
nev · cites it 16×
“: This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for judicial review under NRS 233B.130(2). In particular, NRS 233B.”
Mineral County v. State, Board of Equalization (2005)
nev · cites it 16×
“[2] The Department of Motor Vehicles appealed the decision to the district court, where the driver asserted that the Department did not have the right to appeal under NRS 233B.130 since the law allowed only a "person" and not an agency to seek judicial review.”
Zenor v. State (2018)
nev · cites it 9×
“Zenor appealed and an administrative hearing officer reversed the separation. NDOT petitioned for judicial review and the district court affirmed.”
EGGLESTON VS. STUART (2021)
nev · cites it 4×
“317, and NRS 233B.130, and in light of our decision here, we conclude those arguments are without merit.”
State, Department of Human Resources v. Fowler (1993)
nev · cites it 4×
“390(7) 4 and NRS 233B.130. 5 First, NRS Chapter 284 does not authorize an award of attorney’s fees in an administrative disciplinary proceeding or appeal therefrom.”
Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Dist. Ct. (2002)
nev · cites it 9×
“In February 2001, Kristaponis filed a motion to dismiss Carter's petition for judicial review, asserting that he failed to name an indispensable party, the City of Reno, and failed to timely serve the petition pursuant to NRS 233B.130. The Civil Service Commission joined in the…”
Southwest Gas Corp. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM'N OF NEV. (1976)
nev · cites it 3×
“) Southwest Gas contends that, since there was no opportunity for hearing prior to the entry of the order of dismissal by the Commission, this does not qualify as a “contested case,” subject to judicial review under NRS 233B.130. The argument is persuasive.”
State, Department of Motor Vehicles v. McGuire (1992)
nev · cites it 3×
“Discussion McGuire claims this appeal is barred by NRS 233B.130 (1989) which allows only a “person,” not an “agency,” to seek judicial review of an administrative decision.”
Wynn Las Vegas, LLC v. Baldonado (2013)
nev · cites it 3×
“The Dealers petitioned the district court to review the Labor Commissioner’s decision, pursuant to NRS 233B.130. The district court granted the petition and set aside the Labor Commissioner’s decision, finding that the new tip-pooling policy violated NRS 608.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.130(1) — 21 cases
Mineral County v. State, Board of Equalization (2005)
nev
“[2] The Department of Motor Vehicles appealed the decision to the district court, where the driver asserted that the Department did not have the right to appeal under NRS 233B.130 since the law allowed only a "person" and not an agency to seek judicial review.”
EGGLESTON VS. STUART (2021)
nev
“317, and NRS 233B.130, and in light of our decision here, we conclude those arguments are without merit.”
WHITFIELD VS. NEV. STATE PERS. COMM'N (2021)
nev
“The court held that (1) Whitfield's original petition did not comply with NRS 233B.130 because he "failed to name any respondent in the caption or the body" and (2) the amended petition was not filed within 30 days after the agency's final decision as required by NRS 233B.”
Southwest Gas Corp. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM'N OF NEV. (1976)
nev
“) Southwest Gas contends that, since there was no opportunity for hearing prior to the entry of the order of dismissal by the Commission, this does not qualify as a “contested case,” subject to judicial review under NRS 233B.130. The argument is persuasive.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.130(1)(a) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.130(1)(b) — 3 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.130(2) — 19 cases
Prevost v. State (2018)
nev
“: This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for judicial review under NRS 233B.130(2). In particular, NRS 233B.”
WHITFIELD VS. NEV. STATE PERS. COMM'N (2021)
nev
“The court held that (1) Whitfield's original petition did not comply with NRS 233B.130 because he "failed to name any respondent in the caption or the body" and (2) the amended petition was not filed within 30 days after the agency's final decision as required by NRS 233B.”
Washoe County v. Otto (2012)
nev
“Otto and V Park, LLC (collectively, Otto), filed a motion to dismiss Washoe County’s petition for judicial review on two grounds: (1) Washoe County lacked standing under NRS 233B.130 to bring the petition because it was not a “party of record” to the State Board’s proceeding,…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.130(2)(a) — 18 cases
WHITFIELD VS. NEV. STATE PERS. COMM'N (2021)
nev
“The court held that (1) Whitfield's original petition did not comply with NRS 233B.130 because he "failed to name any respondent in the caption or the body" and (2) the amended petition was not filed within 30 days after the agency's final decision as required by NRS 233B.”
Washoe County v. Otto (2012)
nev
“Otto and V Park, LLC (collectively, Otto), filed a motion to dismiss Washoe County’s petition for judicial review on two grounds: (1) Washoe County lacked standing under NRS 233B.130 to bring the petition because it was not a “party of record” to the State Board’s proceeding,…”
Prevost v. State (2018)
nev
“: This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for judicial review under NRS 233B.130(2). In particular, NRS 233B.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.130(2)(b) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.130(2)(c) — 15 cases
Washoe County v. Otto (2012)
nev
“Otto and V Park, LLC (collectively, Otto), filed a motion to dismiss Washoe County’s petition for judicial review on two grounds: (1) Washoe County lacked standing under NRS 233B.130 to bring the petition because it was not a “party of record” to the State Board’s proceeding,…”
Prevost v. State (2018)
nev
“: This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for judicial review under NRS 233B.130(2). In particular, NRS 233B.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.130(2)(c)(1) — 6 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.130(2)(d) — 7 cases
WHITFIELD VS. NEV. STATE PERS. COMM'N (2021)
nev
“The court held that (1) Whitfield's original petition did not comply with NRS 233B.130 because he "failed to name any respondent in the caption or the body" and (2) the amended petition was not filed within 30 days after the agency's final decision as required by NRS 233B.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.130(5) — 8 cases
WHITFIELD VS. NEV. STATE PERS. COMM'N (2021)
nev
“The court held that (1) Whitfield's original petition did not comply with NRS 233B.130 because he "failed to name any respondent in the caption or the body" and (2) the amended petition was not filed within 30 days after the agency's final decision as required by NRS 233B.”
Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Dist. Ct. (2002)
nev
“In February 2001, Kristaponis filed a motion to dismiss Carter's petition for judicial review, asserting that he failed to name an indispensable party, the City of Reno, and failed to timely serve the petition pursuant to NRS 233B.130. The Civil Service Commission joined in the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.130(5)(b) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.130(6) — 8 cases
Zenor v. State (2018)
nev
“Zenor appealed and an administrative hearing officer reversed the separation. NDOT petitioned for judicial review and the district court affirmed.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.130(l) — 1 case
Mineral County v. State, Board of Equalization (2005)
nev
“[2] The Department of Motor Vehicles appealed the decision to the district court, where the driver asserted that the Department did not have the right to appeal under NRS 233B.130 since the law allowed only a "person" and not an agency to seek judicial review.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.130(l)(b) — 2 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.