Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 612 - UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 612.530 (2026)

Judicial review of decision of Board of Review: Commencement of action in district court; parties; service of petition; effect of improper service; answer; summary hearings; appeals to appellate court

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 612.530  Judicial review of decision of Board of Review: Commencement of action in district court; parties; service of petition; effect of improper service; answer; summary hearings; appeals to appellate court.

      1.  Within 11 days after the decision of the Board of Review has become final, any party aggrieved thereby or the Administrator may secure judicial review thereof by commencing an action in the district court of the county where the employment which is the basis of the claim was performed for the review of the decision, in which action any other party to the proceedings before the Board of Review must be made a defendant.

      2.  In such action, a petition which need not be verified, but which must state the grounds upon which a review is sought, must, within 45 days after the commencement of the action, be served upon the Administrator at a designated office of the Administrator in Carson City, unless the Administrator is the appellant, or upon such person as the Administrator may designate, and such service shall be deemed completed service on all parties, but there must be left with the party so served as many copies of the petition as there are defendants, and the Administrator shall forthwith mail one such copy to each defendant. Service of a petition pursuant to this subsection must comply with the provisions of this subsection and the applicable provisions of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure for the service of a summons and complaint.

      3.  If the appellant fails to serve upon the Administrator, or upon such person as the Administrator may designate, any petition pursuant to subsection 2, including, without limitation, a petition that does not comply or is served in a manner that does not comply with the requirements of subsection 2, within 45 days after the commencement of the action, the court is deprived of jurisdiction over the action and shall dismiss the action upon the motion of the Administrator.

      4.  If the appellant serves upon the Administrator, or upon such person as the Administrator may designate, a petition pursuant to subsection 2 within 45 days after the commencement of the action, the Administrator may, within 45 days after the receipt of the petition, file a motion with the court to dismiss the action on the basis that the petition did not comply or was served in a manner that did not comply with the requirements of subsection 2. Within 10 business days after the filing of the motion to dismiss, the appellant shall cure each deficiency concerning the petition, if any. The requirement to cure any deficiency concerning the petition within 10 business days after the filing of the motion to dismiss must be strictly complied with and may not be excused by the court. Failure to comply with that requirement deprives the court of jurisdiction over the action and, if the court determines that the petition did not comply or was served in a manner that did not comply with the requirements of subsection 2 and the deficiencies concerning the petition were not cured within 10 business days after the filing of the motion to dismiss, the court shall grant the motion to dismiss.

      5.  Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the Administrator shall file with the court an answer within 45 days after being served with a petition pursuant to subsection 2 unless the Administrator filed with the court a motion to dismiss pursuant to subsection 4 and the motion was denied, in which case the Administrator shall file the answer within 45 days after the date on which the motion was denied. If the Administrator is the appellant, the Administrator shall serve the petition upon each other party within 45 days after commencement of the action. With the Administrator’s answer or petition, the Administrator shall certify and file with the court originals or true copies of all documents and papers and a transcript of all testimony taken in the matter, together with the Board of Review’s findings of fact and decision therein. The Administrator may certify to the court questions of law involved in any decision.

      6.  In any judicial proceedings under this section, the finding of the Board of Review as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, is conclusive, and the jurisdiction of the court is confined to questions of law.

      7.  Such actions, and the questions so certified, must be heard in a summary manner and must be given precedence over all other civil cases except cases arising under chapters 616A to 616D, inclusive, or chapter 617 of NRS.

      8.  An appeal may be taken from the decision of the district court to the appellate court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the rules fixed by the Supreme Court of Nevada pursuant to Section 4 of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution in the same manner, but not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter, as is provided in civil cases.

      9.  It is not necessary, in any judicial proceeding under this section, to enter exceptions to the rulings of the Board of Review, and no bond may be required for entering the appeal.

      10.  Upon the final determination of the judicial proceeding, the Board of Review shall enter an order in accordance with the determination.

      11.  A petition for judicial review does not act as a supersedeas or stay unless the Board of Review so orders.

      [6:129:1937; renumbered 6.16:129:1937 and A 1951, 349]—(NRS A 1971, 753; 1993, 1831; 1999, 207; 2003, 1938; 2005, 448; 2013, 1792; 2020, 32nd Special Session, 87; 2021, 1481; 2025, 2963)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1968–2023 · leading case: Kame v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 769 P.2d 66 (Nev. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kame v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 769 P.2d 66 (Nev. 1989). · cites it 6× “Respondents Employment Security and Silver Slipper argue that the ten day time limit prescribed by NRS 612.530 is jurisdictional and mandatory.”
State, Emp. Sec. Dep't v. Weber, 676 P.2d 1318 (Nev. 1984). · cites it 2× “NRS 612.530(4). 5 Our review of the record indicates that the Board fully reviewed the undisputed facts of this case and determined that respondent left his job voluntarily without good cause.”
Barnum v. Williams, 436 P.2d 219 (Nev. 1968). · cites it 2× “Thereafter, Williams sought review of the administrative decision in the district court pursuant to NRS 612.530. The district court found that the Employment Security Department *40 acted capriciously and in excess of its jurisdiction by improperly considering the issue of…”
Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Bundley, 148 P.3d 750 (Nev. 2006). “2d 497, 499 (1986); see also NRS 612.530(4) (providing that, “[i]n any judicial *1445 proceedings .”
Mishler v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 849 P.2d 291 (Nev. 1993). · cites it 2× “NRS 612.530(4); 7 Employment Sec. Dep’t v.”
Caruso v. Nevada Emp. Sec. Dep't, 734 P.2d 224 (Nev. 1987). · cites it 3× “NRS 612.530(1). Appellant filed an unsuccessful claim for unemployment compensation benefits in Carson City, Nevada.”
Leeson v. Basic Refractories, 705 P.2d 137 (Nev. 1985). “The Board may act “solely on the basis of evidence previously submitted, or upon the basis of such additional evidence as it may direct to be taken.” Id. The district court’s power to review a decision of the Board, however, is more limited.”
Kraft v. Nevada Emp. Sec. Dep't, 717 P.2d 583 (Nev. 1986). “Where review is sought, the factual findings of the Board, if “supported by evidence .”
Fremont Hotel & Casino v. Esposito, 760 P.2d 122 (Nev. 1988). “” NRS 612.530(4). NRS 612.385 provides: A person is ineligible for benefits for the week in which he has filed a claim for benefits, if he was discharged from his *397 last or next to last employment for misconduct connected with his work, and remains ineligible until he earns…”
Whitney v. State, Dep't of Emp. Sec., 783 P.2d 459 (Nev. 1989). · cites it 2× “140(5); NRS 612.530(4); Nacheff, 104 Nev. at 349 , 757 P.”
Nevada Emp. Sec. Dep't v. Nacheff, 757 P.2d 787 (Nev. 1988). · cites it 2× “*349 Under the standard of review for appeals from the ESD, if the factual findings of the agency are supported by evidence, they are conclusive, and a reviewing court’s jurisdiction is confined to questions of law.”
Lellis v. Archie, 516 P.2d 469 (Nev. 1973). “On December 1, 1971 the board of review entered its decision reversing the appeals tribunal’s determination and disqualifying the appellant for benefits for eleven weeks commencing June 20, 1971.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 612.530(1) — 6 cases
Kame v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 769 P.2d 66 (Nev. 1989). “Respondents Employment Security and Silver Slipper argue that the ten day time limit prescribed by NRS 612.530 is jurisdictional and mandatory.”
Caruso v. Nevada Emp. Sec. Dep't, 734 P.2d 224 (Nev. 1987). “NRS 612.530(1). Appellant filed an unsuccessful claim for unemployment compensation benefits in Carson City, Nevada.”
The Bd. of Review for the Nev. Dep't. of Emp't., Training, & Rehab. Vs. Dist. Ct. (mcdonald's of Keystone), 2017 NV 35 (Nev. 2017).
Jorrin v. State, Emp't Sec. Div. (Nev. 2023).
The Bd. of Review for the Nev. Dep't. of Emp't., Training, & Rehab. Vs. Dist. Ct. (mcdonald's of Keystone), 2017 NV 35 (Nev. 2017).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 612.530(2) — 4 cases
Chopra Vs. State, Emp'T Sec. Div. (Nev. 2021).
The Bd. of Review for the Nev. Dep't. of Emp't., Training, & Rehab. Vs. Dist. Ct. (mcdonald's of Keystone), 2017 NV 35 (Nev. 2017).
Spar Bus. Serv.'s, Inc. Vs. Olson, 2019 NV 40 (Nev. 2019).
The Bd. of Review for the Nev. Dep't. of Emp't., Training, & Rehab. Vs. Dist. Ct. (mcdonald's of Keystone), 2017 NV 35 (Nev. 2017).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 612.530(4) — 10 cases
State, Emp. Sec. Dep't v. Weber, 676 P.2d 1318 (Nev. 1984). “NRS 612.530(4). 5 Our review of the record indicates that the Board fully reviewed the undisputed facts of this case and determined that respondent left his job voluntarily without good cause.”
Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Bundley, 148 P.3d 750 (Nev. 2006). “2d 497, 499 (1986); see also NRS 612.530(4) (providing that, “[i]n any judicial *1445 proceedings .”
Mishler v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 849 P.2d 291 (Nev. 1993). “NRS 612.530(4); 7 Employment Sec. Dep’t v.”
Barnum v. Williams, 436 P.2d 219 (Nev. 1968). “Thereafter, Williams sought review of the administrative decision in the district court pursuant to NRS 612.530. The district court found that the Employment Security Department *40 acted capriciously and in excess of its jurisdiction by improperly considering the issue of…”
Leeson v. Basic Refractories, 705 P.2d 137 (Nev. 1985). “The Board may act “solely on the basis of evidence previously submitted, or upon the basis of such additional evidence as it may direct to be taken.” Id. The district court’s power to review a decision of the Board, however, is more limited.”
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.