NRS
463.3666 Judicial review: Additional evidence taken by Board or hearing
examiner; 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 Board or
the hearing examiner 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 conducted by the
Board or the hearing examiner. 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 Board or the hearing examiner, the Board or the hearing
examiner may modify the 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 Board or the hearing examiner, 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 Board or the hearing examiner;
(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 1987,
1277; A 1991,
931, 2147)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case:
Sengel v. IGT, 2 P.3d 258 (Nev. 2000).
Sengel v. IGT, 2 P.3d 258 (Nev. 2000).
· cites it 5× “The State Legislature, in enacting the legislative scheme of which NRS 463.3666 is a part, has empowered the Nevada Gaming Control Board, not this court, to make these policy decisions.”
Mississippi Gaming Com'n v. Freeman, 747 So. 2d 231 (Miss. 1999).
· cites it 2× “§ 75-76-173(2) states that judicial review as provided in this chapter is the exclusive method of review of the commission's actions. Therefore, the proper standard of review in the instant case is determined by the Act.”
Redmer v. Barbary Coast Hotel & Casino, 872 P.2d 341 (Nev. 1994).
“2d 1337 (1978); see also NRS 463.3666. Yet in spite of this standard, this court is free to examine purely legal questions decided at the administrative level.”
Friedlander v. Tamarack Junction Race & Sports Book (civil), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 23 (Nev. 2026).
· cites it 3× “NRS 463.3666(3). Friedlander challenges the Board's determination under prongs (d) and (e), arguing that his substantial rights were prejudiced because the decision was unsupported by the evidence and was both arbitrary and capricious.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.3666(2) — 2 cases
Mississippi Gaming Com'n v. Freeman, 747 So. 2d 231 (Miss. 1999).
“§ 75-76-173(2) states that judicial review as provided in this chapter is the exclusive method of review of the commission's actions. Therefore, the proper standard of review in the instant case is determined by the Act.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.3666(3) — 2 cases
Sengel v. IGT, 2 P.3d 258 (Nev. 2000).
“The State Legislature, in enacting the legislative scheme of which NRS 463.3666 is a part, has empowered the Nevada Gaming Control Board, not this court, to make these policy decisions.”
Friedlander v. Tamarack Junction Race & Sports Book (civil), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 23 (Nev. 2026).
“NRS 463.3666(3). Friedlander challenges the Board's determination under prongs (d) and (e), arguing that his substantial rights were prejudiced because the decision was unsupported by the evidence and was both arbitrary and capricious.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.3666(3)(d) — 2 cases
Sengel v. IGT, 2 P.3d 258 (Nev. 2000).
“The State Legislature, in enacting the legislative scheme of which NRS 463.3666 is a part, has empowered the Nevada Gaming Control Board, not this court, to make these policy decisions.”
Friedlander v. Tamarack Junction Race & Sports Book (civil), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 23 (Nev. 2026).
“NRS 463.3666(3). Friedlander challenges the Board's determination under prongs (d) and (e), arguing that his substantial rights were prejudiced because the decision was unsupported by the evidence and was both arbitrary and capricious.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.3666(3)(e) — 1 case
Friedlander v. Tamarack Junction Race & Sports Book (civil), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 23 (Nev. 2026).
“NRS 463.3666(3). Friedlander challenges the Board's determination under prongs (d) and (e), arguing that his substantial rights were prejudiced because the decision was unsupported by the evidence and was both arbitrary and capricious.”
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.