Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 38 - MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 38.237 (2026)

Change of award by arbitrator

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 38.237  Change of award by arbitrator.

      1.  On motion to an arbitrator by a party to an arbitral proceeding, the arbitrator may modify or correct an award:

      (a) Upon a ground stated in paragraph (a) or (c) of subsection 1 of NRS 38.242;

      (b) Because the arbitrator has not made a final and definite award upon a claim submitted by the parties to the arbitral proceeding; or

      (c) To clarify the award.

      2.  A motion under subsection 1 must be made and notice given to all parties within 20 days after the movant receives notice of the award.

      3.  A party to the arbitral proceeding must give notice of any objection to the motion within 10 days after receipt of the notice.

      4.  If a motion to the court is pending under NRS 38.239, 38.241 or 38.242, the court may submit the claim to the arbitrator to consider whether to modify or correct the award:

      (a) Upon a ground stated in paragraph (a) or (c) of subsection 1 of NRS 38.242;

      (b) Because the arbitrator has not made a final and definite award upon a claim submitted by the parties to the arbitral proceeding; or

      (c) To clarify the award.

      5.  An award modified or corrected pursuant to this section is subject to subsection 1 of NRS 38.236 and to NRS 38.239, 38.241 and 38.242.

      (Added to NRS by 2001, 1281)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2023 · leading case: Health Plan of Nevada, Inc. v. Rainbow Med., LLC, 100 P.3d 172 (Nev. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Health Plan of Nevada, Inc. v. Rainbow Med., LLC, 100 P.3d 172 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 7× “10 HPN contends that, absent one of the statutory grounds enumerated in NRS 38.237, a district court lacks authority to remand a matter to an arbitrator.”
Casey v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 290 P.3d 265 (Nev. 2012). “239 reads as follows: After a party to an arbitral proceeding receives notice of an award, the party may make a motion to the court for an order confirming the award at which time the court shall issue a confirming order unless the award is modified or corrected pursuant to NRS…”
Maiza v. King (Nev. 2016). · cites it 2× “" Appellants argue that the arbitration was governed by NRS Chapter 38, and respondent therefore was required to move under NRS 38.237 to modify or correct the award within 20 days after receiving the arbitration award, which she failed to do.”
White v. Baum (Nev. 2018). “We agree with the district court that this clarification did not constitute an impermissible reexamination of the merits of the award.”
Wells Fargo Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Hyflo Ltd. P'ship (D. Nev. 2020). “It states, “[a]fter a 2 party to an arbitral proceeding receives notice of an award, the party may make a motion to the 3 court for an order confirming the award at which time the court shall issue a confirming order 4 unless the award is modified or corrected pursuant to NRS…”
WIIFM, Inc. v. Doorbusters Lock & Safe, LLC (D. Nev. 2023). “20 Under Nevada law, a party to an arbitral proceeding “may make a motion to the court for 21 an order confirming the award at which time the court shall issue a confirming order unless the 22 award is modified or corrected pursuant to NRS 38.237 or 38.242 or is vacated pursuant…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 38.237(1)(c) — 2 cases
Health Plan of Nevada, Inc. v. Rainbow Med., LLC, 100 P.3d 172 (Nev. 2004). “10 HPN contends that, absent one of the statutory grounds enumerated in NRS 38.237, a district court lacks authority to remand a matter to an arbitrator.”
White v. Baum (Nev. 2018). “We agree with the district court that this clarification did not constitute an impermissible reexamination of the merits of the award.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 38.237(4) — 1 case
Health Plan of Nevada, Inc. v. Rainbow Med., LLC, 100 P.3d 172 (Nev. 2004). “10 HPN contends that, absent one of the statutory grounds enumerated in NRS 38.237, a district court lacks authority to remand a matter to an arbitrator.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 38.237(4)(c) — 1 case
Health Plan of Nevada, Inc. v. Rainbow Med., LLC, 100 P.3d 172 (Nev. 2004). “10 HPN contends that, absent one of the statutory grounds enumerated in NRS 38.237, a district court lacks authority to remand a matter to an arbitrator.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 38.237(l)(a) — 1 case
Health Plan of Nevada, Inc. v. Rainbow Med., LLC, 100 P.3d 172 (Nev. 2004). “10 HPN contends that, absent one of the statutory grounds enumerated in NRS 38.237, a district court lacks authority to remand a matter to an arbitrator.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 38.237(l)(b) — 1 case
Health Plan of Nevada, Inc. v. Rainbow Med., LLC, 100 P.3d 172 (Nev. 2004). “10 HPN contends that, absent one of the statutory grounds enumerated in NRS 38.237, a district court lacks authority to remand a matter to an arbitrator.”
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.