Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.315 (2026)

Judicial review: Petition; intervention; stay of enforcement; priority if supervisor appointed

✓ current as of July 2026

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

NRS 463.315 Judicial review: Petition; intervention; stay of enforcement; priority if supervisor appointed.

1. 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 in the district court in and for Carson City, the district court in and for the county in which the petitioner resides or the district court in and for the county in which the petitioner has his, her or its principal place of business.

2. The judicial review must be instituted by filing a petition within 20 days after the effective date of the final decision or order. A petition may not be filed while a petition for rehearing or a rehearing is pending before the Commission. The petition must set forth the order or decision appealed from and the grounds or reasons why petitioner contends a reversal or modification should be ordered.

3. Copies of the petition must be served upon the Commission and all other parties of record, or their counsel of record, either personally or by certified mail.

4. The court, upon a proper showing, may permit other interested persons to intervene as parties to the appeal or as friends of the court.

5. The filing of the petition does not stay enforcement of the decision or order of the Commission, but the Commission itself may grant a stay upon such terms and conditions as it deems proper.

6. If judicial review is sought in any case in which a supervisor has been appointed pursuant to NRS 463B.010 to 463B.280, inclusive, the district court shall give priority to that review over other civil actions.

(Added to NRS by 1959, 448; A 1979, 809; 1983, 1561; 2023, 1497)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1966–2022 · leading case: Resnick v. Nevada Gaming Comm'n, 752 P.2d 229 (Nev. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Resnick v. Nevada Gaming Comm'n, 752 P.2d 229 (Nev. 1988). · cites it 9× “” Despite this general principle of non-intervention, Resnick asserts that the lower court had jurisdiction to consider and reverse the Commission’s order under NRS 463.315. NRS 463.315(1) provides “any person aggrieved by a final decision or order of the commission made after…”

State v. Rosenthal, 559 P.2d 830 (Nev. 1977). · cites it 3× “He premised his petition upon NRS 463.315, alleging that the decision of the Commission violated constitutional provisions, was in excess of its jurisdiction, made upon unlawful procedures, was unsupported by any evidence, and was arbitrary and capricious and otherwise not in…”

State Gaming Control Bd. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 409 P.2d 974 (Nev. 1966). · cites it 5× “” NRS 463.315 (13). 1 Only court review of a final order or decision of the Nevada Gaming Commission is permissible.”

Zaika v. Del E. Webb Corp., 508 F. Supp. 1005 (D. Nev. 1981). · cites it 3× “NRS 463.315. 2 Therefore, if the licensee refuses to pay a player’s claim after an adverse decision by the Gaming Control Board, it has in effect a right to further administrative review in front of the Gaming Commission and judicial review in Nevada courts.”

O'Callaghan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 505 P.2d 1215 (Nev. 1973). · cites it 5× “A reading of the Gaming Control Act reveals that the judicial review specified in NRS 463.315 applies to disciplinary or other action against a licensee [NRS 463.”

Spilotro v. State ex rel. Nevada Gaming Comm'n, 661 P.2d 467 (Nev. 1983). “NRS 463.315(11)(c). Appellant’s other contentions would be certain to reappear following reissuance of the Commission’s written order.”

State V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 899 P.2d 1121 (Nev. 1995). · cites it 2× “The commission contends that pursuant to NRS 463.315(5), only the commission has the statutory authority to stay its order of exclusion and that the district court, therefore, exceeded its jurisdiction in granting Corbo’s motion to stay execution.”

Nev. Gaming Comm'n v. Wynn, 2022 NV 20 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 24× “: NRS 463.315(1) entitles a person subject to disciplinary proceedings by the Nevada Gaming Commission to judicial review of the Commission's final order in district court.”

M & R Inv. Co. v. Nevada Gaming Comm'n, 559 P.2d 829 (Nev. 1977). “NRS 463.315. Our function and that of the district court is to review the evidence presented to the Commission and to determine if there is any evidence to support the decision of the Commission.”

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. NRS 463.140(2); 463.220. Moreover, if the Commission is…”

Nevada Indus. Comm'n v. Strange, 437 P.2d 873 (Nev. 1968). “2 NRS 463.315(1). “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.”

Spilotro v. State, Ex Rel. Nev. Gaming Com'n, 661 P.2d 467 (Nev. 1983). “NRS 463.315(11)(c). Appellant's other contentions would be certain to reappear following reissuance of the Commission's written order.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.315(1) — 4 cases

State Gaming Control Bd. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 409 P.2d 974 (Nev. 1966). “” NRS 463.315 (13). 1 Only court review of a final order or decision of the Nevada Gaming Commission is permissible.”

Resnick v. Nevada Gaming Comm'n, 752 P.2d 229 (Nev. 1988). “” Despite this general principle of non-intervention, Resnick asserts that the lower court had jurisdiction to consider and reverse the Commission’s order under NRS 463.315. NRS 463.315(1) provides “any person aggrieved by a final decision or order of the commission made after…”

Nev. Gaming Comm'n v. Wynn, 2022 NV 20 (Nev. 2022). “: NRS 463.315(1) entitles a person subject to disciplinary proceedings by the Nevada Gaming Commission to judicial review of the Commission's final order in district court.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.315(11) — 1 case

State v. Rosenthal, 559 P.2d 830 (Nev. 1977). “He premised his petition upon NRS 463.315, alleging that the decision of the Commission violated constitutional provisions, was in excess of its jurisdiction, made upon unlawful procedures, was unsupported by any evidence, and was arbitrary and capricious and otherwise not in…”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.315(11)(c) — 2 cases

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.315(13) — 3 cases

O'Callaghan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 505 P.2d 1215 (Nev. 1973). “A reading of the Gaming Control Act reveals that the judicial review specified in NRS 463.315 applies to disciplinary or other action against a licensee [NRS 463.”

George v. Nevada Gaming Comm'n, 468 P.2d 995 (Nev. 1970).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.315(2) — 1 case

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.315(5) — 1 case

State V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 899 P.2d 1121 (Nev. 1995). “The commission contends that pursuant to NRS 463.315(5), only the commission has the statutory authority to stay its order of exclusion and that the district court, therefore, exceeded its jurisdiction in granting Corbo’s motion to stay execution.”

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.