Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.140 (2026)

Procedure for applying for stay of final decision; considerations by court in making ruling; provision of security by petitioner

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 233B.140 Procedure for applying for stay of final decision; considerations by court in making ruling; provision of security by petitioner.

1. A petitioner who applies for a stay of the final decision in a contested case shall file and serve a written motion for the stay on the agency and all parties of record to the proceeding at the time of filing the petition for judicial review.

2. In determining whether to grant a stay, the court shall consider the same factors as are considered for a preliminary injunction under Rule 65 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure.

3. In making a ruling, the court shall:

(a) Give deference to the trier of fact; and

(b) Consider the risk to the public, if any, of staying the administrative decision.

Ê The petitioner must provide security before the court may issue a stay.

(Added to NRS by 1967, 810; A 1977, 58; 1989, 1652)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 38 cases, 1971–2018 · leading case: Nevada Indus. Comm'n v. Reese, 560 P.2d 1352 (Nev. 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nevada Indus. Comm'n v. Reese, 560 P.2d 1352 (Nev. 1977). · cites it 26× “NRS 233B.140, subsections 4 and 5. [1] The respondents, Luther Reese, Daniel G.”

Apeceche v. White Pine Cnty., 615 P.2d 975 (Nev. 1980). · cites it 4× “An agency decision may be reversed if substantial rights of appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.”

Gen. Motors v. Jackson, 900 P.2d 345 (Nev. 1995). · cites it 2× “Appellant first asserts that the legislature specifically restricted the district court’s authority to remand cases to the appeals officer for further fact-finding by amending NRS 233B.140. We disagree. The amendment to NRS 233B.”

Gandy v. State Ex Rel. Div. of Investigation & Narcotics, 607 P.2d 581 (Nev. 1980). · cites it 2× “It is there provided that court review is confined to the record before the agency, NRS 233B.”

Dredge v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Prisons, 769 P.2d 56 (Nev. 1989). · cites it 3× “Specifically, under NRS 233B.140(5), the courts are enjoined from substituting their judgment for that of the agency concerning the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.”

Sw. Gas Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Com'n of Nev., 546 P.2d 219 (Nev. 1976). · cites it 3× “Even more persuasive, however, is a careful reading of NRS 233B.140 which prescribes the scope of, and limitations on, judicial review under NRS Chapter 233B.”

State Ex Rel. Sweikert v. Briare, 588 P.2d 542 (Nev. 1978). · cites it 2× “The trial court remanded this matter to the Civil Service Board for further proceedings pursuant to NRS 233B.140. Although the Administrative Procedures Act is not applicable, the district court apparently utilized it as a guide and we find no error in its decision to do so.”

Am. Int'l Vacations v. MacBride, 661 P.2d 1301 (Nev. 1983). “MacBride then filed a petition for judicial review; the district court ordered the Appeals Officer’s decision reversed on the grounds that MacBride had suffered a compensable “injury” as a result of an “accident.” American International now appeals the decision of the district…”

S. Nevada Mem'l Hosp. v. State, 705 P.2d 139 (Nev. 1985). · cites it 2× “Our review of the record convinces us that Salo, Martelle and Hanmer abused their discretion in violation of NRS 233B.140(5)(f). We accordingly agree with the district court that the Department’s first decision was appropriate and must be sustained.”

Feldman v. State, 615 P.2d 238 (Nev. 1980). · cites it 3× “” NRS 233B.140: 5. The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.”

Checker Cab Co. v. State, 621 P.2d 496 (Nev. 1981). · cites it 2× “NRS 233B.140(5)(c); Wadell v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 68 A.”

Nevada Indus. Comm'n v. Williams, 541 P.2d 905 (Nev. 1975). · cites it 4× “NRS 233B.140. The Commission once more denied his claim for the same reason as before.”

Show all 38 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.140(1) — 1 case

State, Dep't of Motor Vehs. & Pub. Saf. v. Moss, 802 P.2d 627 (Nev. 1990).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.140(2) — 2 cases

Nevada Indus. Comm'n v. Reese, 560 P.2d 1352 (Nev. 1977). “NRS 233B.140, subsections 4 and 5. [1] The respondents, Luther Reese, Daniel G.”

S. Nev. Health Dist. v. Local Gov't Emp.-Mgmt. Relations Bd. (Nev. 2018).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.140(3) — 4 cases

Nevada Indus. Comm'n v. Reese, 560 P.2d 1352 (Nev. 1977). “NRS 233B.140, subsections 4 and 5. [1] The respondents, Luther Reese, Daniel G.”

McCracken v. Cory, 664 P.2d 349 (Nev. 1983).

State, Dept. Mtr. Veh. v. Dist. Ct., 948 P.2d 261 (Nev. 1997).

Nevada Indus. Comm'n v. Horn, 653 P.2d 155 (Nev. 1982).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.140(3)(b) — 1 case

Langston v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehs., 871 P.2d 362 (Nev. 1994).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.140(4) — 5 cases

Nevada Indus. Comm'n v. Reese, 560 P.2d 1352 (Nev. 1977). “NRS 233B.140, subsections 4 and 5. [1] The respondents, Luther Reese, Daniel G.”

Apeceche v. White Pine Cnty., 615 P.2d 975 (Nev. 1980). “An agency decision may be reversed if substantial rights of appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.”

Sw. Gas Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Com'n of Nev., 546 P.2d 219 (Nev. 1976). “Even more persuasive, however, is a careful reading of NRS 233B.140 which prescribes the scope of, and limitations on, judicial review under NRS Chapter 233B.”

Whitney v. State, Dep't of Emp. Sec., 783 P.2d 459 (Nev. 1989).

Nevada Indus. Comm'n v. Williams, 541 P.2d 905 (Nev. 1975). “NRS 233B.140. The Commission once more denied his claim for the same reason as before.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.140(5) — 15 cases

Nevada Indus. Comm'n v. Reese, 560 P.2d 1352 (Nev. 1977). “NRS 233B.140, subsections 4 and 5. [1] The respondents, Luther Reese, Daniel G.”

Gandy v. State Ex Rel. Div. of Investigation & Narcotics, 607 P.2d 581 (Nev. 1980). “It is there provided that court review is confined to the record before the agency, NRS 233B.”

Dredge v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Prisons, 769 P.2d 56 (Nev. 1989). “Specifically, under NRS 233B.140(5), the courts are enjoined from substituting their judgment for that of the agency concerning the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.”

Crank v. Nevada Indus. Comm'n, 675 P.2d 413 (Nev. 1984).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.140(5)(a) — 1 case

Local Gov't Emp.-Mgmt. Relations Bd. v. Gen. Sales Drivers, Delivery Drivers & Helpers, Teamsters Local Union No. 14, 641 P.2d 478 (Nev. 1982).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.140(5)(b) — 1 case

State v. City of Fallon, 685 P.2d 1385 (Nev. 1984).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.140(5)(c) — 1 case

Checker Cab Co. v. State, 621 P.2d 496 (Nev. 1981). “NRS 233B.140(5)(c); Wadell v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 68 A.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.140(5)(d) — 4 cases

Warpinski v. State Indus. Ins. Sys., 747 P.2d 227 (Nev. 1987).

Nevada Indus. Comm'n v. Horn, 653 P.2d 155 (Nev. 1982).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.140(5)(d)(e) — 1 case

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.140(5)(e) — 6 cases

State Indus. Ins. Sys. v. Snapp, 680 P.2d 590 (Nev. 1984).

Washoe Cnty. v. John A. Dermody, Inc., 668 P.2d 280 (Nev. 1983).

Bd. of Med. Examiners v. Potter, 659 P.2d 868 (Nev. 1983).

State ex rel. List v. Mirin, 553 P.2d 966 (Nev. 1976).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.140(5)(e)(f) — 2 cases

Gandy v. State Ex Rel. Div. of Investigation & Narcotics, 607 P.2d 581 (Nev. 1980). “It is there provided that court review is confined to the record before the agency, NRS 233B.”

State Indus. Ins. Sys. v. Christensen, 787 P.2d 408 (Nev. 1990).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 233B.140(5)(f) — 3 cases

S. Nevada Mem'l Hosp. v. State, 705 P.2d 139 (Nev. 1985). “Our review of the record convinces us that Salo, Martelle and Hanmer abused their discretion in violation of NRS 233B.140(5)(f). We accordingly agree with the district court that the Department’s first decision was appropriate and must be sustained.”

Feldman v. State, 615 P.2d 238 (Nev. 1980). “” NRS 233B.140: 5. The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.”

Meadow v. Civil Serv. Bd., 781 P.2d 772 (Nev. 1989).

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.