Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.317 (2026)

Judicial review: Additional evidence taken by Commission; review confined to record; court may affirm, remand or reverse

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 463.317  Judicial review: Additional evidence taken by Commission; review confined to record; court may affirm, remand or reverse.

      1.  The reviewing court may, upon motion therefor, order that additional evidence in the case be taken by the Commission upon such terms and conditions as the court deems just and proper. The motion must not be granted except upon a showing that the additional evidence is material and necessary and that sufficient reason existed for failure to present the evidence at the hearing of the Commission. The motion must be supported by an affidavit of the moving party or his or her counsel showing with particularity the materiality and necessity of the additional evidence and the reason why it was not introduced in the administrative hearing. Rebuttal evidence to the additional evidence must be permitted. In cases in which additional evidence is presented to the Commission, the Commission may modify its decisions and orders as the additional evidence may warrant and shall file with the reviewing court a transcript of the additional evidence together with any modifications of the decision and order, all of which become a part of the record on review.

      2.  The review must be conducted by the court sitting without a jury, and must not be a trial de novo but is confined to the record on review. The filing of briefs and oral argument must be made in accordance with the rules governing appeals in civil cases unless the local rules of practice adopted in the judicial district provide a different procedure.

      3.  The reviewing court may affirm the decision and order of the Commission, or it may remand the case for further proceedings or reverse the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the decision is:

      (a) In violation of constitutional provisions;

      (b) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the Commission;

      (c) Made upon unlawful procedure;

      (d) Unsupported by any evidence; or

      (e) Arbitrary or capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law.

      (Added to NRS by 1983, 1572; A 1991, 2145)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2022 · leading case: Thomas v. Bible, 694 F. Supp. 750 (D. Nev. 1988).
Thomas v. Bible, 694 F. Supp. 750 (D. Nev. 1988). · cites it 2× “The state district court can remand the case back to the Commission for further hearings or can reverse the Commission’s decision on the grounds specified in Nev. Rev.Stat. § 463.317(3). If the state district court affirms the Commission’s decision, a candidate has the right of…”
State v. Rosenthal, 819 P.2d 1296 (Nev. 1991). · cites it 3× “NRS 463.317(3). 2 Appellants cite this court’s recent decision in Clark County Liquor and Gaming v.”
Nev. Gaming Comm'n v. Wynn, 2022 NV 20 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 2× “NRS 463.317(3)(b). NRS 463.318(2), in turn, expressly precludes writ relief by providing that judicial review under NRS 463.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.317(3) — 2 cases
Thomas v. Bible, 694 F. Supp. 750 (D. Nev. 1988). “The state district court can remand the case back to the Commission for further hearings or can reverse the Commission’s decision on the grounds specified in Nev. Rev.Stat. § 463.317(3). If the state district court affirms the Commission’s decision, a candidate has the right of…”
State v. Rosenthal, 819 P.2d 1296 (Nev. 1991). “NRS 463.317(3). 2 Appellants cite this court’s recent decision in Clark County Liquor and Gaming v.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.317(3)(b) — 1 case
Nev. Gaming Comm'n v. Wynn, 2022 NV 20 (Nev. 2022). “NRS 463.317(3)(b). NRS 463.318(2), in turn, expressly precludes writ relief by providing that judicial review under NRS 463.”
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.