NRS
241.0365 Action taken by public body to correct violation of chapter;
timeliness of corrective action; effect.
1. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 4, if a public body, after providing the notice described in
subsection 2, takes action in conformity with this chapter to correct an
alleged violation of this chapter within 30 days after the alleged violation,
the Attorney General may decide not to commence prosecution of the alleged violation
if the Attorney General determines foregoing prosecution would be in the best
interests of the public.
2. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 4, before taking any action to correct an alleged violation of this
chapter, the public body must include an item on the agenda posted for the
meeting at which the public body intends to take the corrective action in
conformity with this chapter. The inclusion of an item on the agenda for a
meeting of a public body pursuant to this subsection is not an admission of
wrongdoing for the purposes of civil action, criminal prosecution or injunctive
relief.
3. For purposes of subsection 1, the
period of limitations set forth in subsection 3 of NRS 241.037 by which the Attorney General
may bring suit is tolled for 30 days.
4. The provisions of this section do not
prohibit a public body from taking action in conformity with this chapter to
correct an alleged violation of the provisions of this chapter before the
adjournment of the meeting at which the alleged violation occurs.
5. Any action taken by a public body to
correct an alleged violation of this chapter by the public body is effective
prospectively.
(Added to NRS by 2013,
727)
Notes of Decisions
Comm'n on Ethics of Nev. v. Hansen, 419 P.3d 140 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 6× “To the extent the Commission argues that the subsequent authorization cures any open meeting law violation, we note that NRS 241.0365(5) provides that any action taken to correct an open meeting law violation is only effective prospectively.”
The Comm'n. on Ethics of the State of Nevada Vs. Hansen, 2018 NV 40 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 12× “To the extent the Commission argues that the subsequent authorization cures any open meeting law violation, we note that NRS 241.0365(5) provides that any action taken to correct an open meeting law violation is only effective prospectively.”
The Comm'n. on Ethics of the State of Nevada Vs. Hansen, 2018 NV 40 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 12× “To the extent the Commission argues that the subsequent authorization cures any open meeting law violation, we note that NRS 241.0365(5) provides that any action taken to correct an open meeting law violation is only effective prospectively.”
The Comm'n. on Ethics of the State of Nevada Vs. Hansen, 2017 NV 39 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 10× “To the extent the Commission argues that the subsequent authorization cures any open meeting law violation, we note that NRS 241.0365(5) provides that any action taken to correct an open meeting law violation is only effective prospectively.”
The Comm'n. on Ethics of the State of Nevada Vs. Hansen, 2017 NV 39 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 5× “To the extent the Commission argues that the subsequent authorization cures any open meeting law violation, we note that NRS 241.0365(5) provides that any action taken to correct an open meeting law violation is only effective prospectively.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 241.0365(5) — 5 cases
Comm'n on Ethics of Nev. v. Hansen, 419 P.3d 140 (Nev. 2018).
“To the extent the Commission argues that the subsequent authorization cures any open meeting law violation, we note that NRS 241.0365(5) provides that any action taken to correct an open meeting law violation is only effective prospectively.”
The Comm'n. on Ethics of the State of Nevada Vs. Hansen, 2018 NV 40 (Nev. 2018).
“To the extent the Commission argues that the subsequent authorization cures any open meeting law violation, we note that NRS 241.0365(5) provides that any action taken to correct an open meeting law violation is only effective prospectively.”
The Comm'n. on Ethics of the State of Nevada Vs. Hansen, 2018 NV 40 (Nev. 2018).
“To the extent the Commission argues that the subsequent authorization cures any open meeting law violation, we note that NRS 241.0365(5) provides that any action taken to correct an open meeting law violation is only effective prospectively.”
The Comm'n. on Ethics of the State of Nevada Vs. Hansen, 2017 NV 39 (Nev. 2017).
“To the extent the Commission argues that the subsequent authorization cures any open meeting law violation, we note that NRS 241.0365(5) provides that any action taken to correct an open meeting law violation is only effective prospectively.”
The Comm'n. on Ethics of the State of Nevada Vs. Hansen, 2017 NV 39 (Nev. 2017).
“To the extent the Commission argues that the subsequent authorization cures any open meeting law violation, we note that NRS 241.0365(5) provides that any action taken to correct an open meeting law violation is only effective prospectively.”
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.