Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 463 - LICENSING AND CONTROL OF GAMING

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.361

Enforceability and resolution of gaming debts

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 463.361  Enforceability and resolution of gaming debts.

      1.  Except as otherwise provided in NRS 463.361 to 463.366, inclusive, and 463.780, gaming debts that are not evidenced by a credit instrument are void and unenforceable and do not give rise to any administrative or civil cause of action.

      2.  A claim by a patron of a licensee for payment of a gaming debt that is not evidenced by a credit instrument may be resolved in accordance with NRS 463.362 to 463.366, inclusive:

      (a) By the Board; or

      (b) If the claim is for less than $1,000, by a hearing examiner designated by the Chair of the Board.

      (Added to NRS by 1983, 1846; A 1991, 929; 2001, 3086; 2025, 425)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Sengel v. IGT
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sengel v. IGT (2000) nev · cites it 4× “…1 NRS 463.361 provides, as follows: 1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 463.361 to 463.366, inclu *569 sive, gaming debts that are not evi”
Sigel v. McEvoy (1985) nev · cites it 4× “In 1983, the legislature enacted NRS 463.361(1), which provides in part that “gaming debts not evidenced by a credit instrument are void and unenforceable and do not give rise to any administrative or civil cause of action.”
Konstantin Zoggolis v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC (2014) ca9 · cites it 12× “The panel also held that because the markers were credit instruments, Zoggolis’ claims did not trigger the Gaming Control Board’s exclusive jurisdiction over a “gaming debt that is not evidenced by a credit instrument” under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.361 (2).”
Manley v. MGM Resorts International (2023) nvd · cites it 4× “Gibilterra is inapposite here because this case involves gambling-related credit 2 Gaming Control Board because it has “exclusive jurisdiction” under NRS § 463.361. (ECF 3 No. 27 at 6.) On one hand, the Nevada Supreme Court does not appear to have squarely 4 addressed the issue…”
Desert Palace, Inc. v. Michael (2019) nvd “In support, he relied exclusively on NRS 463.361, which states that "gaming debts that are not evidenced by a credit instrument are void and unenforceable and do not give rise to any administrative or civil cause of action.”
Estate of Chagra v. Commissioner (1990) tax · cites it 2× “…a credit agreement meeting certain requirements. Nev. Rev. Stat. sec. 463.361(1) (1983). The statute provides that only credit instruments accepted on or after June 1, 1983, are valid, and the statute has n”
Desert Palace, Inc. v. Michael (2020) nvd · cites it 2× “17 Michael accuses me of “re- 9 writ[ing]” Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS)§ 463.361 to apply only to patrons,18 but I came to 10 that conclusionwith the aid of Nevada case law, Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) 11 regulations, and the name of the statutory chapter where § 463.”
Toll v. Nevada Property 1 LLC (2021) nvd · cites it 2× “Additionally, if The Cosmopolitan believed 5 that recovery was subject to the administrative process of NRS § 463.361, it would have had a 6 duty to report the dispute to the NGCB.”
FRIEDLANDER v. TAMARACK JUNCTION RACE & SPORTS BOOK (CIVIL) (2026) nev · cites it 2× “…a gaming payout with a breach of contract claim; instead, the matter must be referred to the Board. NRS 463.361(1); NRS 463.362(1). Upon receiving such a complaint, the Board assigns an agent to investigate the claim and determine whether the gaming debt SUPREME COURT OF…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.361(1) — 3 cases
Sigel v. McEvoy (1985) nev “In 1983, the legislature enacted NRS 463.361(1), which provides in part that “gaming debts not evidenced by a credit instrument are void and unenforceable and do not give rise to any administrative or civil cause of action.”
Sengel v. IGT (2000) nev “…1 NRS 463.361 provides, as follows: 1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 463.361 to 463.366, inclu *569 sive, gaming debts that are not evi”
FRIEDLANDER v. TAMARACK JUNCTION RACE & SPORTS BOOK (CIVIL) (2026) nev “…a gaming payout with a breach of contract claim; instead, the matter must be referred to the Board. NRS 463.361(1); NRS 463.362(1). Upon receiving such a complaint, the Board assigns an agent to investigate the claim and determine whether the gaming debt SUPREME COURT OF…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.361(2) — 1 case
Manley v. MGM Resorts International (2023) nvd “Gibilterra is inapposite here because this case involves gambling-related credit 2 Gaming Control Board because it has “exclusive jurisdiction” under NRS § 463.361. (ECF 3 No. 27 at 6.) On one hand, the Nevada Supreme Court does not appear to have squarely 4 addressed the issue…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.361(2)(a) — 1 case
Sengel v. IGT (2000) nev “…1 NRS 463.361 provides, as follows: 1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 463.361 to 463.366, inclu *569 sive, gaming debts that are not evi”
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.