NRS
463.312 Contents and service of complaint; answer; effect of failure to
answer or appear; notice of hearing.
1. The complaint referred to in NRS 463.310 and 464.080 must be a written statement of
charges which must set forth in ordinary and concise language the acts or
omissions with which the respondent is charged. It must specify the statutes
and regulations which the respondent is alleged to have violated, but must not
consist merely of charges raised in the language of the statutes or
regulations.
2. Upon the filing of the complaint, the
Commission shall serve a copy of the complaint upon the respondent either
personally, or by registered or certified mail at the address of the respondent
that is on file with the Commission.
3. Except as provided in subsection 4, the
respondent must answer within 20 days after the service of the complaint. In
the answer the respondent:
(a) Must state in short and plain terms the
defenses to each claim asserted.
(b) Must admit or deny the facts alleged in the
complaint.
(c) Must state which allegations the respondent
is without knowledge or information to form a belief as to their truth. Such
allegations shall be deemed denied.
(d) Must affirmatively set forth any matter which
constitutes an avoidance or affirmative defense.
(e) May demand a hearing. Failure to demand a
hearing constitutes a waiver of the right to a hearing and to judicial review
of any decision or order of the Commission, but the Commission may order a
hearing even if the respondent so waives his or her right.
4. Failure to answer or to appear at the
hearing constitutes an admission by the respondent of all facts alleged in the
complaint. The Commission may take action based on such an admission and on
other evidence without further notice to the respondent. If the Commission
takes action based on such an admission, it shall include in the record which
evidence was the basis for the action.
5. The Commission shall determine the time
and place of the hearing as soon as is reasonably practical after receiving the
respondent’s answer. The Commission shall deliver or send by registered or
certified mail a notice of hearing to all parties at least 10 days before the
hearing.
(Added to NRS by 1959,
443; A 1960,
299; 1967,
1032, 1283;
1969,
95; 1975,
681; 1979,
777; 1983,
1555)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1966–2025 · leading case:
State v. Rosenthal, 559 P.2d 830 (Nev. 1977).
State v. Rosenthal, 559 P.2d 830 (Nev. 1977).
· cites it 3× “That statute provides that “Any person aggrieved by a *42 final decision or order of the commission made after hearing or rehearing by the commission pursuant to NRS 463.312 . . . may obtain a judicial review thereof in the district court.”
Zaika v. Del E. Webb Corp., 508 F. Supp. 1005 (D. Nev. 1981).
· cites it 4× “If the Commission finds there are probable grounds for disciplinary action, it conducts a full hearing on the matter in accordance with NRS 463.312. See NRS 463.310(3). 1 The Com *1010 mission then has the power to discipline the licensee as specified in NRS 463.”
Spilotro v. State ex rel. Nevada Gaming Comm'n, 661 P.2d 467 (Nev. 1983).
· cites it 4× “However, we will note that NRS 463.312(13)(f) provides that “[a]ny relevant evidence may be admitted and is sufficient to support a finding if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs,” whether or not the…”
Resnick v. Nevada Gaming Comm'n, 752 P.2d 229 (Nev. 1988).
· cites it 5× “315(1) provides “any person aggrieved by a final decision or order of the commission made after hearing or rehearing by the commission pursuant to NRS 463.312 to 463.3145, inclusive, and whether or not a petition for rehearing was filed, may obtain a judicial review thereof.”
Thomas v. Bible, 694 F. Supp. 750 (D. Nev. 1988).
· cites it 3× “2d at 836 ; Nev.Rev.Stat. § 463.312 (1987), the court takes very seriously the charges alleged by plaintiff and thoroughly reviews the administrative proceedings.”
Rosenthal v. State of Nev., 514 F. Supp. 907 (D. Nev. 1981).
“The Commission has the power to issue subpoenas, compel attendance of witnesses, and administer oaths.”
Spilotro v. State, Ex Rel. Nev. Gaming Com'n, 661 P.2d 467 (Nev. 1983).
· cites it 4× “However, we will note that NRS 463.312(13)(f) provides that "[a]ny relevant evidence may be admitted and is sufficient to support a finding if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs," whether or not the…”
State Gaming Control Bd. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 409 P.2d 974 (Nev. 1966).
“315(1) reads, “Any person aggrieved by a final decision or order of the commission made after hearing or rehearing by the commission pursuant to NRS 463.312, and whether or not a petition for rehearing was filed, may obtain a judicial review thereof in the district court of the…”
Nevada Indus. Comm'n v. Strange, 437 P.2d 873 (Nev. 1968).
““Any person aggrieved by a final decision or order of the [Nevada Tax] commission made after hearing or rehearing by the commission pursuant to NRS 463.312, and whether or not a petition for rehearing was filed, may obtain a judicial review thereof in the district court of the…”
O'Callaghan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 505 P.2d 1215 (Nev. 1973).
· cites it 2× “315 applies to disciplinary or other action against a licensee [NRS 463.312], to one who has been excluded or rejected from any licensed gaming establishment [NRS 463.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.312(13) — 1 case
State v. Rosenthal, 559 P.2d 830 (Nev. 1977).
“That statute provides that “Any person aggrieved by a *42 final decision or order of the commission made after hearing or rehearing by the commission pursuant to NRS 463.312 . . . may obtain a judicial review thereof in the district court.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.312(13)(f) — 2 cases
Spilotro v. State ex rel. Nevada Gaming Comm'n, 661 P.2d 467 (Nev. 1983).
“However, we will note that NRS 463.312(13)(f) provides that “[a]ny relevant evidence may be admitted and is sufficient to support a finding if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs,” whether or not the…”
Spilotro v. State, Ex Rel. Nev. Gaming Com'n, 661 P.2d 467 (Nev. 1983).
“However, we will note that NRS 463.312(13)(f) provides that "[a]ny relevant evidence may be admitted and is sufficient to support a finding if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs," whether or not the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.312(18) — 2 cases
Spilotro v. State ex rel. Nevada Gaming Comm'n, 661 P.2d 467 (Nev. 1983).
“However, we will note that NRS 463.312(13)(f) provides that “[a]ny relevant evidence may be admitted and is sufficient to support a finding if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs,” whether or not the…”
Spilotro v. State, Ex Rel. Nev. Gaming Com'n, 661 P.2d 467 (Nev. 1983).
“However, we will note that NRS 463.312(13)(f) provides that "[a]ny relevant evidence may be admitted and is sufficient to support a finding if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs," whether or not the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.312(2) — 1 case
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.