Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.362 (2026)

Resolution of disputes

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 463.362  Resolution of disputes.

      1.  Whenever a patron and a licensee, or any person acting on behalf of or in conjunction with a licensee, have any dispute which cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the patron and which involves:

      (a) Alleged winnings, alleged losses or the award or distribution of cash, prizes, benefits, tickets or any other item or items in a game, tournament, contest, drawing, promotion or similar activity or event; or

      (b) The manner in which a game, tournament, contest, drawing, promotion or similar activity or event is conducted,

Ê the licensee is responsible for notifying the Board or patron in accordance with the provisions of subsection 2, regardless of whether the licensee is directly or indirectly involved in the dispute.

      2.  Whenever a dispute described in subsection 1 involves:

      (a) At least $500, the licensee shall immediately notify the Board; or

      (b) Less than $500, the licensee shall notify the patron of the patron’s right to request that the Board conduct an investigation.

      3.  Upon being notified of a dispute, the Board, through an agent, shall conduct whatever investigation it deems necessary and shall determine whether payment should be made. The agent of the Board shall mail written notice to the Board, the licensee and the patron of the agent’s decision resolving the dispute within 45 days after the date the Board first receives notification from the licensee or a request to conduct an investigation from the patron. The failure of the agent to mail notice of the agent’s decision within the time required by this subsection does not divest the Board of its exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute.

      4.  Failure of the licensee to notify the Board or patron as provided in subsection 2 is grounds for disciplinary action pursuant to NRS 463.310 to 463.3145, inclusive.

      5.  The decision of the agent of the Board is effective on the date the aggrieved party receives notice of the decision. Notice of the decision shall be deemed sufficient if it is mailed to the last known address of the licensee and patron. The date of mailing may be proven by a certificate signed by an officer or employee of the Board which specifies the time the notice was mailed. The notice shall be deemed to have been received by the licensee or the patron 5 days after it is deposited with the United States Postal Service with the postage thereon prepaid.

      (Added to NRS by 1983, 1846; A 1985, 1797; 1987, 188; 1989, 1264; 1991, 929, 2146; 1995, 1498; 2007, 1112; 2009, 286)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Young Vs. Nev. Gaming Control Bd., 2020 NV 66 (Nev. 2020).
Young Vs. Nev. Gaming Control Bd., 2020 NV 66 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 8× “Further, even if we were to disregard the within-the-language rule and look to related law, NRS 463.362 would be inapt because it does not define "patron," but in fact addresses a subset of SUPREME COUR OF NEVADA 4 (0) 1947A ADP NagaltZ.”
Hazelwood v. Harrah's, 862 P.2d 1189 (Nev. 1993). · cites it 2× “According to NRS 463.362, whenever a dispute occurs concerning a payment exceeding $500, the Gaming Control Board must be called.”
Sengel v. IGT, 2 P.3d 258 (Nev. 2000). “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 $500, by a hearing examiner designated by the…”
Harrah's Club v. Nevada State Gaming Control Bd., 766 P.2d 900 (Nev. 1988). · cites it 2× “NRS 463.362. An aggrieved party may then file a petition for reconsideration of the agent’s decision with the NGCB.”
Friedlander v. Tamarack Junction Race & Sports Book (civil), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 23 (Nev. 2026). · cites it 2× “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 NEVADA 4 (01 IR47A should be paid.”
Toll v. Nevada Prop. 1 LLC (D. Nev. 2021). “STAT § 463.362 (stating that whenever a 7 dispute which cannot be resolved involving the manner in which a promotion is conducted 8 involves “[a]t least $500, the licensee shall immediately notify the Board.”
Konstantin Zoggolis v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC (9th Cir. 2014). “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 $500, by a hearing examiner designated by the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.362(1) — 2 cases
Harrah's Club v. Nevada State Gaming Control Bd., 766 P.2d 900 (Nev. 1988). “NRS 463.362. An aggrieved party may then file a petition for reconsideration of the agent’s decision with the NGCB.”
Friedlander v. Tamarack Junction Race & Sports Book (civil), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 23 (Nev. 2026). “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 NEVADA 4 (01 IR47A should be paid.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.362(1)(a) — 1 case
Young Vs. Nev. Gaming Control Bd., 2020 NV 66 (Nev. 2020). “Further, even if we were to disregard the within-the-language rule and look to related law, NRS 463.362 would be inapt because it does not define "patron," but in fact addresses a subset of SUPREME COUR OF NEVADA 4 (0) 1947A ADP NagaltZ.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.362(3) — 1 case
Friedlander v. Tamarack Junction Race & Sports Book (civil), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 23 (Nev. 2026). “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 NEVADA 4 (01 IR47A should be paid.”
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.