NRS
612.500 Hearing on appeal: Procedure; evidence; record; witnesses; trial
de novo in certain circumstances.
1. A reasonable opportunity for a fair
hearing on appeals must be promptly afforded all parties.
2. An Appeal Tribunal shall inquire into
and develop all facts bearing on the issues and shall receive and consider
evidence without regard to statutory and common-law rules. In addition to the
issues raised by the appealed determination, the Appeal Tribunal may consider
all issues affecting the claimant’s rights to benefits from the beginning of
the period covered by the determination to the date of the hearing.
3. An Appeal Tribunal shall include in the
record and consider as evidence all records of the Administrator that are
material to the issues.
4. The Administrator shall adopt
regulations governing the manner of filing appeals and the conduct of hearings
and appeals consistent with the provisions of this chapter.
5. A record of all testimony and
proceedings on appeal must be kept for 6 months after the date on which a
decision of an Appeal Tribunal is mailed or electronically transmitted, but
testimony need not be transcribed unless further review is initiated. If
further review is not initiated within that period, the record may be
destroyed.
6. Witnesses subpoenaed are entitled to
fees in the amounts specified in NRS 50.225,
and the fees of witnesses so subpoenaed shall be deemed part of the expense of
administering this chapter.
7. An Appeal Tribunal shall not
participate in an appeal hearing in which the Appeal Tribunal has a direct or
indirect interest.
8. If the records of an appeal have been
destroyed pursuant to subsection 5, a person aggrieved by the decision in the
appeal may petition a district court for a trial de novo. If the district court
finds that good cause exists for the party’s failure to pursue the
administrative remedies provided in NRS
612.510, it may grant the petitioner’s request.
[6:129:1937; renumbered 6.10:129:1937 and A 1951,
347; A 1955,
698]—(NRS A 1971,
753; 1975,
914; 1987,
552; 1993,
1830; 2007,
63; 2021,
1480)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1968–2021 · leading case:
Barnum v. Williams, 436 P.2d 219 (Nev. 1968).
Barnum v. Williams, 436 P.2d 219 (Nev. 1968).
· cites it 2× “” The appeals referee, pursuant to NRS 612.500(2), conducted an extensive hearing, both in Las Vegas and in Los Angeles.”
Lellis v. Archie, 516 P.2d 469 (Nev. 1973).
“A hearing was held before the appeals tribunal (NRS 612.500) and it entered its determination along with findings of fact, reversing the Unemployment Compensation Service decision and allowing benefits to appellant.”
Hohenstein Vs. Nev. Emp. Sec., 2015 NV 17 (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 2× “" NRS 612.500(2). At first blush, this standard appears to sanctify the ESD's reliance on Hohenstein's guilty plea as a basis for denying him unemployment benefits.”
Ross Vs. State, Emp'T Sec. Div. (Nev. 2021).
“4FAY 11 NRS Chapter 612 proceedings "prevail over the general provisions of this chaptee), with NRS 612.500(2) (setting forth the evidentiary standards for NRS Chapter 612 proceedings).”
Hohenstein Vs. Nev. Emp. Sec., 2015 NV 17 (Nev. 2015).
“" NRS 612.500(2). At first blush, this standard appears to sanctify the ESD's reliance on Hohenstein's guilty plea as a basis for denying him unemployment benefits.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 612.500(2) — 4 cases
Barnum v. Williams, 436 P.2d 219 (Nev. 1968).
“” The appeals referee, pursuant to NRS 612.500(2), conducted an extensive hearing, both in Las Vegas and in Los Angeles.”
Hohenstein Vs. Nev. Emp. Sec., 2015 NV 17 (Nev. 2015).
“" NRS 612.500(2). At first blush, this standard appears to sanctify the ESD's reliance on Hohenstein's guilty plea as a basis for denying him unemployment benefits.”
Ross Vs. State, Emp'T Sec. Div. (Nev. 2021).
“4FAY 11 NRS Chapter 612 proceedings "prevail over the general provisions of this chaptee), with NRS 612.500(2) (setting forth the evidentiary standards for NRS Chapter 612 proceedings).”
Hohenstein Vs. Nev. Emp. Sec., 2015 NV 17 (Nev. 2015).
“" NRS 612.500(2). At first blush, this standard appears to sanctify the ESD's reliance on Hohenstein's guilty plea as a basis for denying him unemployment benefits.”
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.