NRS
278.0233 Actions against agency: Conditions and limitations.
1. Any person who has any right, title or
interest in real property, and who has filed with the appropriate state or
local agency an application for a permit which is required by statute or an
ordinance, resolution or regulation adopted pursuant to NRS 278.010 to 278.630, inclusive, before that person may
improve, convey or otherwise put that property to use, may bring an action
against the agency to recover actual damages caused by:
(a) Any final action, decision or order of the
agency which imposes requirements, limitations or conditions upon the use of
the property in excess of those authorized by ordinances, resolutions or
regulations adopted pursuant to NRS 278.010
to 278.630, inclusive, in effect on the
date the application was filed, and which:
(1) Is arbitrary or capricious; or
(2) Is unlawful or exceeds lawful
authority.
(b) Any final action, decision or order of the
agency imposing a tax, fee or other monetary charge that is not expressly
authorized by statute or that is in excess of the amount expressly authorized
by statute.
(c) The failure of the agency to act on that
application within the time for that action as limited by statute, ordinance or
regulation.
2. An action must not be brought under
subsection 1:
(a) Where the agency did not know, or reasonably
could not have known, that its action, decision or order was unlawful or in
excess of its authority.
(b) Based on the invalidation of an ordinance,
resolution or regulation in effect on the date the application for the permit
was filed.
(c) Where a lawful action, decision or order of the
agency is taken or made to prevent a condition which would constitute a threat
to the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community.
(d) Where the applicant agrees in writing to
extensions of time concerning his or her application.
(e) Where the applicant agrees in writing or
orally on the record during a hearing to the requirements, limitations or
conditions imposed by the action, decision or order, unless the applicant
expressly states in writing or orally on the record during the hearing that a
requirement, limitation or condition is agreed to under protest and specifies
which paragraph of subsection 1 provides cause for the protest.
(f) For unintentional procedural or ministerial
errors of the agency.
(g) Unless all administrative remedies have been
exhausted.
(h) Against any individual member of the agency.
(Added to NRS by 1983,
2099; A 1995,
1035; 2013,
3216)
Notes of Decisions
Travelers Hotel, Ltd. v. City of Reno, 741 P.2d 1353 (Nev. 1987).
· cites it 9× “We hold however that the trial court erred in applying NRS 278.0233 and NRS 278.0237 to award damages and attorney’s fees.”
Boulder City v. Cinnamon Hills Assocs., 871 P.2d 320 (Nev. 1994).
· cites it 5× “Second, Cinnamon Hills sought damages pursuant to NRS 278.0233, claiming that denial of the *242 permit was “arbitrary and capricious.”
Falline v. GNLV CORP., 823 P.2d 888 (Nev. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Except as provided in NRS 278.0233 no action may be brought under NRS 41.”
Enter. Citizens Action Comm. v. Clark Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 918 P.2d 305 (Nev. 1996).
· cites it 6× “However, the statute indicates that relief in the form of actual damages is available only to the party which submitted the application requesting an improvement or change of use on its property and only after the responsible agency acts arbitrarily in imposing some type of…”
Redrock Valley Ranch, LLC v. Washoe Cnty., 254 P.3d 641 (Nev. 2011).
“30, that issuance of the permit would “not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; injurious to the property or improvements of adjacent properties; or detrimental to the character of the surrounding area.”
State v. Eaton, 710 P.2d 1370 (Nev. 1985).
“032(2) provides: Except as provided in NRS 278.0233 no action may be brought under NRS 41.”
N. Nevada Ass'n of Injured Workers v. Nevada State Indus. Ins. Sys., 807 P.2d 729 (Nev. 1991).
“Based upon an act or omission of an officer, employee or immune contractor, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation is valid, if the statute or regulation has not been declared invalid by a court of competent…”
City of Boulder City v. Boulder Excavating, Inc., 191 P.3d 1175 (Nev. 2008).
“032 provides that government actors following statutory guidelines or exercising their discretion are immune from common law tort actions in connection with their statutory duties or their discretion: Except as provided in NRS 278.0233 no action may be brought under NRS 41.”
Roberts v. State, 752 P.2d 221 (Nev. 1988).
“032 provides in part: Except as provided in NRS 278.0233 no action may be brought under NRS 41.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 278.0233(1) — 1 case
Travelers Hotel, Ltd. v. City of Reno, 741 P.2d 1353 (Nev. 1987).
“We hold however that the trial court erred in applying NRS 278.0233 and NRS 278.0237 to award damages and attorney’s fees.”
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.