NRS
463.368 Credit instruments: Validity; enforcement; redemption;
penalties; regulations.
1. A credit instrument accepted on or
after June 1, 1983, and the debt that the credit instrument represents are
valid and may be enforced by legal process.
2. A licensee or a person acting on behalf
of a licensee may accept an incomplete credit instrument which:
(a) Is signed by a patron; and
(b) States the amount of the debt in figures,
Ê and may
complete the instrument as is necessary for the instrument to be presented for
payment.
3. A licensee or person acting on behalf
of a licensee:
(a) May accept a credit instrument that is
payable to an affiliated company or may complete a credit instrument in the
name of an affiliated company as payee if the credit instrument otherwise
complies with this subsection and the records of the affiliated company
pertaining to the credit instrument are made available to agents of the Board
upon request.
(b) May accept a credit instrument either before,
at the time or after the patron incurs the debt. The credit instrument and the
debt that the credit instrument represents are enforceable without regard to
whether the credit instrument was accepted before, at the time or after the
debt is incurred.
4. This section does not prohibit the
establishment of an account by a deposit of cash, recognized traveler’s check,
or any other instrument which is equivalent to cash.
5. If a credit instrument is lost or
destroyed, the debt represented by the credit instrument may be enforced if the
licensee or person if acting on behalf of the licensee can prove the existence
of the credit instrument.
6. A patron’s claim of having a mental or
behavioral disorder involving gambling:
(a) Is not a defense in any action by a licensee
or a person acting on behalf of a licensee to enforce a credit instrument or
the debt that the credit instrument represents.
(b) Is not a valid counterclaim to such an
action.
7. Any person who violates the provisions
of this section is subject only to the penalties provided in NRS 463.310 to 463.318, inclusive. The failure of a person
to comply with the provisions of this section or the regulations of the
Commission does not invalidate a credit instrument or affect the ability to
enforce the credit instrument or the debt that the credit instrument
represents.
8. The Commission may adopt regulations
prescribing the conditions under which a credit instrument may be redeemed or
presented to a bank or credit union for collection or payment.
9. The Commission may adopt regulations:
(a) Allowing a licensee to accept an electronic
signature from a patron on a credit instrument; and
(b) Prescribing the conditions for the validity
of such an electronic signature.
(Added to NRS by 1983,
828; A 1985,
798; 1989,
400; 1991,
817; 1995,
1499; 1999,
1500; 2021,
1303)
UNREDEEMED WAGERING VOUCHERS
Notes of Decisions
Metro. Creditors Serv. v. Sadri, 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3895 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 3× “Sadri subsequently stopped payment on the checks and memoranda, which were drawn on his account at a Redwood City bank. A Nevada statute makes credit instruments evidencing gambling debts owed to licensed persons, and the debts represented, valid and enforceable by legal process.”
Kramer v. Bally's Park Place, Inc., 535 A.2d 466 (Md. 1988).
“2d 10, 11 (1980) (changed by later statutory enactment, Nev.Rev.Stat. § 463.368 (1983)). See also, Lane & Pyron, Inc.”
Labarbera Vs. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 2018 NV 51 (Nev. 2018).
“LaBarbera also claims that the district court erred when it excluded evidence of his gambling addiction, but we conclude this claim lacks merit under NRS 463.368(6) (stating that a patron's claim of having a gambling disorder is not a defense in an action to enforce a gambling…”
Sigel v. McEvoy, 707 P.2d 1145 (Nev. 1985).
“361(1) is applicable only to transactions occurring on or after the effective date of the statute, May 26, 1983); see also NRS 463.368(1). Accordingly, we must look to the dictates of the common law to determine the enforceability of the parties’ agreement.”
Desert Palace, Inc. v. Michael (D. Nev. 2020).
· cites it 4× “3 Michael also objects to my grant of summary judgment in favor of Caesars on its fraud 4 claim,22 which was based on facts deemed established as a sanction forMichael’s discovery 5 violations.”
In Re Jafari, 378 B.R. 575 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2007).
“§ 335, now codified at Nev.Rev.Stat. § 463.368. The Nevada legislature finally acted because the gaming collection rate, generally 95%, had "dipped below 90% for the first time in history.”
Rood v. Comm'r, 1996 T.C. Memo. 248 (Tax Ct. 1996).
· cites it 2× “A gaming debt evidenced by a credit instrument was legally enforceable pursuant to Nevada law when petitioner incurred his debt to Caesar's.”
Est. of Chagra v. Comm'r, 60 T.C.M. 104 (Tax Ct. 1990).
· cites it 2× “Nevada legislation effective in 1983 made certain gambling debts legally enforceable provided they are evidenced by a credit agreement meeting certain requirements.”
Labarbera Vs. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 2018 NV 51 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 2× “LaBarbera also claims that the district court erred when it excluded evidence of his gambling addiction, but we conclude this claim lacks merit under NRS 463.368(6) (stating that a patron's claim of SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 3 The district court abused its discretion by…”
MGM Grand Hotel v. Long (D. Nev. 2022).
· cites it 2× “” NRS 23 § 463.368(1); see also Morales v. Aria Resort & Casino, LLC, 995 F.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.368(1) — 5 cases
Sigel v. McEvoy, 707 P.2d 1145 (Nev. 1985).
“361(1) is applicable only to transactions occurring on or after the effective date of the statute, May 26, 1983); see also NRS 463.368(1). Accordingly, we must look to the dictates of the common law to determine the enforceability of the parties’ agreement.”
MGM Grand Hotel v. Long (D. Nev. 2022).
“” NRS 23 § 463.368(1); see also Morales v. Aria Resort & Casino, LLC, 995 F.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.368(2) — 1 case
MGM Grand Hotel v. Long (D. Nev. 2022).
“” NRS 23 § 463.368(1); see also Morales v. Aria Resort & Casino, LLC, 995 F.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.368(6) — 3 cases
Labarbera Vs. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 2018 NV 51 (Nev. 2018).
“LaBarbera also claims that the district court erred when it excluded evidence of his gambling addiction, but we conclude this claim lacks merit under NRS 463.368(6) (stating that a patron's claim of having a gambling disorder is not a defense in an action to enforce a gambling…”
Labarbera Vs. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 2018 NV 51 (Nev. 2018).
“LaBarbera also claims that the district court erred when it excluded evidence of his gambling addiction, but we conclude this claim lacks merit under NRS 463.368(6) (stating that a patron's claim of SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 3 The district court abused its discretion by…”
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.