NRS
463.220 Action by Commission on application; further investigation;
hearing.
1. The Board shall present its final order
upon an application to the Commission at the next meeting of the Commission.
2. The Commission may, after considering
the recommendation of the Board, issue to the applicant named, as a natural
person, and to the licensed gaming establishment, as a business entity, under
the name or style therein designated, a state gaming license, or deny the same.
The Commission may limit the license or place such conditions thereon as it may
deem necessary in the public interest. The Commission may, if it considers
necessary, issue a probationary license. No state gaming license may be
assigned either in whole or in part.
3. The Commission may limit or place such
conditions as it may deem necessary in the public interest upon any
registration, finding of suitability or approval for which application has been
made.
4. After final order of the Board
recommending denial of an application, the Commission, after considering the
recommendation of the Board, may:
(a) Deny the application;
(b) Reject the application;
(c) Remand the matter to the Board for such
further investigation and reconsideration as the Commission may order; or
(d) By unanimous vote of the members present,
grant the application for a license, registration, finding of suitability or
approval.
Ê For the
purposes of this section, a tie vote of the Board upon an application does not
constitute a recommendation of denial of the application. A rejection of the
application does not constitute a determination of the suitability of the
applicant or a denial of the application of the applicant.
5. If the Commission is not satisfied that
an applicant approved by the Board is qualified to be licensed under this
chapter, the Commission may cause to be made such investigation into and
conduct such hearings concerning the qualifications of the applicant in
accordance with its regulations as it may deem necessary.
6. If the Commission desires further
investigation be made or to conduct any hearings, it shall, within 30 days
after presentation of the recommendation of the Board so notify the applicant
and set a date for hearing, if a hearing is requested by the applicant. Final
action by the Commission must be taken within 120 days after the recommendation
of the Board has been presented to the Commission. Failure of the Commission to
take action within 120 days shall be deemed to constitute approval of the
applicant by the Commission, and a license must be issued forthwith upon
compliance by the applicant with the provisions of NRS 463.225.
7. The Commission has full and absolute
power and authority to deny any application for any cause it deems reasonable.
If an application is denied, the Commission shall prepare and file its written
decision upon which its order denying the application is based.
[22:429:1955]—(NRS A 1959,
439; 1967,
1030; 1969,
402; 1975,
678; 1981,
1081; 1983,
398; 1985,
717; 2017,
362)
Notes of Decisions
Helen Armstrong v. Terry Reynolds, 22 F.4th 1058 (9th Cir. 2022).
“In so doing, the statute gives complainants a “legitimate claim of entitlement” to an investigation of their complaint and to an action being brought on their behalf if the investigation shows a violation of the statutory provisions.”
State v. Rosenthal, 559 P.2d 830 (Nev. 1977).
· cites it 2× “Notwithstanding this fact, the record refutes the court finding. The applicant and his two attorneys were present at each hearing.”
Kraft v. Jacka, 669 F. Supp. 333 (D. Nev. 1987).
· cites it 4× “CAUSATION The claims for relief made by the plaintiffs are based largely on the fact that the plaintiffs were denied licenses.”
Prods. & Leasing v. Hotel Conquistador, Inc., 573 F. Supp. 717 (D. Nev. 1983).
· cites it 3× “The Nevada Gaming Commission: has full and absolute power and authority to deny any application for any cause it deems reasonable. (NRS 463.220(7)). (Emphasis added.”
Jacobson v. Hannifin, 627 F.2d 177 (9th Cir. 1980).
· cites it 2× “” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.220 (6); see also Nev.”
Rosenthal v. State of Nev., 514 F. Supp. 907 (D. Nev. 1981).
“140 (1977); NRS 463.220 (1977). Furthermore, all fees and penalties collected by these agencies are turned over to the state treasury.”
Rosenthal v. State Ex Rel. Nevada Gaming Comm'n, 620 P.2d 874 (Nev. 1980).
· cites it 4× “NRS 463.220(4). If the Gaming Commission is not satisfied that the applicant is qualified for licensing, the Gaming Commission may conduct a hearing.”
In Re Proceedings Before the Fed. Grand Jury, 487 F. Supp. 1098 (D. Nev. 1980).
“The Board makes recommendations to the Commission as to whether an applicant is suitable for licensing; but it is the Commission that has “full and absolute power and authority” to actually grant or deny an application.”
George v. Nevada Gaming Comm'n, 468 P.2d 995 (Nev. 1970).
· cites it 4× “The final disposition of George’s application rests with the Commission, as prescribed in NRS 463.220(3) . 7 The order of the district judge denying the appellant’s petition for mandamus is affirmed.”
Cohen v. State, 930 P.2d 125 (Nev. 1997).
· cites it 2× “NRS 463.220(7) provides that the “commission has full and absolute power and authority to deny any application for any cause it deems reasonable.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.220(3) — 1 case
George v. Nevada Gaming Comm'n, 468 P.2d 995 (Nev. 1970).
“The final disposition of George’s application rests with the Commission, as prescribed in NRS 463.220(3) . 7 The order of the district judge denying the appellant’s petition for mandamus is affirmed.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.220(4) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.220(5) — 2 cases
George v. Nevada Gaming Comm'n, 468 P.2d 995 (Nev. 1970).
“The final disposition of George’s application rests with the Commission, as prescribed in NRS 463.220(3) . 7 The order of the district judge denying the appellant’s petition for mandamus is affirmed.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.220(6) — 2 cases
State v. Rosenthal, 559 P.2d 830 (Nev. 1977).
“Notwithstanding this fact, the record refutes the court finding. The applicant and his two attorneys were present at each hearing.”
In Re Proceedings Before the Fed. Grand Jury, 487 F. Supp. 1098 (D. Nev. 1980).
“The Board makes recommendations to the Commission as to whether an applicant is suitable for licensing; but it is the Commission that has “full and absolute power and authority” to actually grant or deny an application.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.220(7) — 3 cases
Kraft v. Jacka, 669 F. Supp. 333 (D. Nev. 1987).
“CAUSATION The claims for relief made by the plaintiffs are based largely on the fact that the plaintiffs were denied licenses.”
Prods. & Leasing v. Hotel Conquistador, Inc., 573 F. Supp. 717 (D. Nev. 1983).
“The Nevada Gaming Commission: has full and absolute power and authority to deny any application for any cause it deems reasonable. (NRS 463.220(7)). (Emphasis added.”
Cohen v. State, 930 P.2d 125 (Nev. 1997).
“NRS 463.220(7) provides that the “commission has full and absolute power and authority to deny any application for any cause it deems reasonable.”
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.