Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 396.505 (2026)

Comprehensive plan for new programs and expansions of existing programs of instruction, public service and research; presentation of revised plan to Legislature

✓ current as of July 2026

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

NRS 396.505 Comprehensive plan for new programs and expansions of existing programs of instruction, public service and research; presentation of revised plan to Legislature.

1. The Board of Regents shall prepare a comprehensive plan for the next 4 years which explains:

(a) Any anticipated new programs and expansions of existing programs of instruction, public service or research, itemized by year and by purpose;

(b) The anticipated cost of each new or expanded program described under paragraph (a);

(c) The amount and source of any money anticipated to be available, from sources other than legislative appropriation, to meet each item of anticipated cost listed pursuant to paragraph (b); and

(d) Any further information concerning its comprehensive planning which the Board of Regents may deem appropriate.

2. The Board of Regents shall biennially bring the plan up to date for the ensuing 4 years, and shall present the revised plan to the Legislature not later than February 1 of each odd-numbered year.

(Added to NRS by 1967, 1380; A 1973, 313; 1993, 349)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2006–2006 · leading case: Simonian v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nevada, 128 P.3d 1057 (Nev. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Simonian v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nevada, 128 P.3d 1057 (Nev. 2006). “1987) (pointing out that a judgment against UNR and the Board of Regents would be paid out of the State’s general fund (citing Johnson v.”

Simonian v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys., 128 P.3d 1057 (Nev. 2006). “325, 328 (D.Nev. 1987) (pointing out that a judgment against UNR and the Board of Regents would be paid out of the State's general fund (citing Johnson v.”

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.