Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 237.100 (2026)

Objection to adopted rule: Petition; procedure

✓ current as of July 2026

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

NRS 237.100 Objection to adopted rule: Petition; procedure.

1. A business that is aggrieved by a rule adopted by the governing body of a local government on or after January 1, 2000, may object to all or a part of the rule by filing a petition with the governing body that adopted the rule within 30 days after the date on which the rule was adopted.

2. A petition filed pursuant to subsection 1 may be based on the following grounds:

(a) The governing body of the local government or its designee failed to prepare a business impact statement as required pursuant to NRS 237.080 and 237.090;

(b) The business impact statement prepared by the governing body or its designee pursuant to NRS 237.080 and 237.090 is inaccurate, incomplete or did not adequately consider or significantly underestimated the economic effect of the rule on businesses; or

(c) The governing body of the local government failed to comply with any of the requirements of NRS 237.030 to 237.150, inclusive, before adopting the proposed rule.

3. After receiving a petition pursuant to subsection 1, the governing body of a local government shall determine whether the petition has merit. If the governing body determines that the petition has merit, the governing body must take action to readopt or amend the rule to which the business objected after considering the business impact statement.

4. Each governing body of a local government shall provide a procedure for an aggrieved business to object to a rule adopted by the governing body. The procedure must be filed with the clerk of the local government and available upon request at no charge.

(Added to NRS by 1999, 2073; A 2005, 1479; 2013, 2310; 2019, 887)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2013–2022 · leading case: Nevada Restaurant Servs., Inc. v. Clark Cnty., 981 F. Supp. 2d 947 (D. Nev. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nevada Restaurant Servs., Inc. v. Clark Cnty., 981 F. Supp. 2d 947 (D. Nev. 2013). · cites it 4× “NRS § 237.100(1)(b). Dotty’s contends that the BISs are “devoid of any real discussion of the [proposals’] economic effect on the tavern industry.”

Castellanos v. City of Reno (D. Nev. 2022). · cites it 12× “090, a BIS must include specific information, such as “[t]he estimated economic effect 28 of the proposed rule on the businesses which it is to regulate,” including “[b]oth adverse 2 Under NRS § 237.100, an aggrieved business can file an objection to the adoption of a 3 rule if…”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 237.100(1) — 1 case

Castellanos v. City of Reno (D. Nev. 2022). “090, a BIS must include specific information, such as “[t]he estimated economic effect 28 of the proposed rule on the businesses which it is to regulate,” including “[b]oth adverse 2 Under NRS § 237.100, an aggrieved business can file an objection to the adoption of a 3 rule if…”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 237.100(1)(b) — 1 case

Nevada Restaurant Servs., Inc. v. Clark Cnty., 981 F. Supp. 2d 947 (D. Nev. 2013). “NRS § 237.100(1)(b). Dotty’s contends that the BISs are “devoid of any real discussion of the [proposals’] economic effect on the tavern industry.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 237.100(2)(b) — 1 case

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.