NRS
463.318 Judicial review: Appeal to appellate court; exclusive method of
review for disciplinary hearings; certain actions not subject to judicial
review.
1. Any party aggrieved by the final
decision in the district court after a review of the decision and order of the
Commission may appeal to the appellate court of competent jurisdiction pursuant
to the rules fixed by the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 4 of Article 6 of the Nevada
Constitution in the manner and within the time provided by law for appeals in
civil cases. The appellate court of competent jurisdiction shall follow the
same procedure thereafter as in appeals in civil actions, and may affirm,
reverse or modify the decision as the record and law warrant.
2. The judicial review by the district
court and the appellate court of competent jurisdiction afforded in this
chapter is the exclusive method of review of the Commission’s actions,
decisions and orders in disciplinary hearings held pursuant to NRS 463.310 to 463.3145, inclusive. Judicial review is
not available for actions, decisions and orders of the Commission relating to the
denial of a license or to limited or conditional licenses. Extraordinary
common-law writs or equitable proceedings are available except where statutory
judicial review is made exclusive or is precluded, or the use of those writs or
proceedings is precluded by specific statute.
(Added to NRS by 1983,
1573; A 1985,
2139; 2013,
1785)
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
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× “Nev.Rev.Stat. § 463.318(1) (1987). In the instant action, the court finds that plaintiff was not denied procedural due process at the hearings before the Commission.”
Nev. Gaming Comm'n v. Wynn, 2022 NV 20 (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 26× “The Agencies contend that Wynn is not entitled to writ relief because judicial review under NRS 463.318 is the exclusive method of court intervention regarding the Commission's disciplinary decisions and that writ relief is explicitly excluded.”
Resnick v. Nevada Gaming Comm'n, 752 P.2d 229 (Nev. 1988).
“4 We note that under NRS 463.318, “Judicial review is not available for actions, decisions and orders of the commission relating to the denial of a license or to limited or conditional licenses.”
Cohen v. State, 930 P.2d 125 (Nev. 1997).
· cites it 4× “” NRS 463.318(2). In the face of such clear statutory language one might wonder if judicial intervention is ever warranted in cases involving denial of a gaming license; still, there are cases in which judicial intervention in gaming matters is called for.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.318(1) — 1 case
Thomas v. Bible, 694 F. Supp. 750 (D. Nev. 1988).
“Nev.Rev.Stat. § 463.318(1) (1987). In the instant action, the court finds that plaintiff was not denied procedural due process at the hearings before the Commission.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.318(2) — 2 cases
Nev. Gaming Comm'n v. Wynn, 2022 NV 20 (Nev. 2022).
“The Agencies contend that Wynn is not entitled to writ relief because judicial review under NRS 463.318 is the exclusive method of court intervention regarding the Commission's disciplinary decisions and that writ relief is explicitly excluded.”
Cohen v. State, 930 P.2d 125 (Nev. 1997).
“” NRS 463.318(2). In the face of such clear statutory language one might wonder if judicial intervention is ever warranted in cases involving denial of a gaming license; still, there are cases in which judicial intervention in gaming matters is called for.”
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.