Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 645 - REAL ESTATE BROKERS AND SALESPERSONS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 645.760 (2026)

Decision final when in favor of licensee; judicial review of decision against licensee

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 645.760  Decision final when in favor of licensee; judicial review of decision against licensee.

      1.  A ruling or decision of the Commission in any disciplinary action is final when in favor of the licensee.

      2.  If a ruling or decision is against the licensee, the licensee is entitled to judicial review of the ruling or decision in the manner provided by chapter 233B of NRS.

      [Part 23:150:1947; 1943 NCL § 6396.23]—(NRS A 1963, 676; 1979, 1553; 1981, 1613; 1985, 1273; 1989, 1659)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1957–2021 · leading case: Williams Vs. Lazer, 2021 NV 44 (Nev. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Williams Vs. Lazer, 2021 NV 44 (Nev. 2021). · cites it 2× “685(1) (providing a licensee the right to file an answer to the charges) and NRS 645.760(2) (providing that a licensee is entitled to judicial review of an adverse ruling or decision) support the conclusion that an NRED proceeding is quasi-judicial because those statutes…”
State, Dep't of Com., Real Est. Div. v. Hyt, 611 P.2d 1096 (Nev. 1980). · cites it 8× “Eight days later, respondent appealed and concurrently demanded a certified transcript pursuant to NRS 645.760. At the district court level, respondent’s “Petition” stated that he was appealing the decision of the Commission.”
Holland Realty Inv. Co. v. State, Dep't of Com., 436 P.2d 422 (Nev. 1968). · cites it 2× “Under NRS 645.760 it is provided that the district court, on an appeal from the decision of the Commission, is “limited solely to a consideration and determination of the question whether there has been an abuse of discretion on the part of the commission in making such decision.”
Randono v. Nevada Real Est. Comm'n, 379 P.2d 537 (Nev. 1963). · cites it 2× “*137 Under NRS 645.760 it is provided that the district court on an appeal from the decision of the Commission is “limited solely to a consideration and determination of the question whether there has been an abuse of discretion on the part of the commission in making such…”
Flanders v. State, Dep't of Com., Real Est. Div., 486 P.2d 499 (Nev. 1971). · cites it 2× “Appellant has demonstrated that the Commission abused its discretion (NRS 645.760) by showing that respondent has failed to present a “prima facie case” (NRS 645.”
Laman v. Nevada Real Est. Advisory Comm'n, 589 P.2d 166 (Nev. 1979). “Appellant filed an appeal (NRS 645.760) and an application for a writ of review (NRS 34.”
State of Nevada Dep't of Com. v. Soeller, 656 P.2d 224 (Nev. 1982). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to NRS 645.760(2), Lund, Soeller and the Thomases appealed from the Commission’s orders to the district court.”
Nolan v. State, Dep't of Com., 460 P.2d 153 (Nev. 1969). “The district court limited its decision to “whether there had been an abuse of discretion on the part of the commission in making such decision” as required by NRS 645.760(3). We agree that was proper and so limit our own review.”
Lowe v. State, 515 P.2d 388 (Nev. 1973). · cites it 3× “The burden of proof is on the appellant, and while the corut may receive and consider any relevant evidence concerning the action of the Commission, its inquiry shall be limited solely to a consideration of whether there has been an abuse on the part of the Commission in…”
Ossorghin v. Nevada Real Est. Comm'n, 312 P.2d 634 (Nev. 1957). “Petitioner also contends that the commission was without jurisdiction to suspend license upon the ground charged under the facts of this case.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 645.760(1) — 1 case
State, Dep't of Com., Real Est. Div. v. Hyt, 611 P.2d 1096 (Nev. 1980). “Eight days later, respondent appealed and concurrently demanded a certified transcript pursuant to NRS 645.760. At the district court level, respondent’s “Petition” stated that he was appealing the decision of the Commission.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 645.760(2) — 3 cases
Williams Vs. Lazer, 2021 NV 44 (Nev. 2021). “685(1) (providing a licensee the right to file an answer to the charges) and NRS 645.760(2) (providing that a licensee is entitled to judicial review of an adverse ruling or decision) support the conclusion that an NRED proceeding is quasi-judicial because those statutes…”
State, Dep't of Com., Real Est. Div. v. Hyt, 611 P.2d 1096 (Nev. 1980). “Eight days later, respondent appealed and concurrently demanded a certified transcript pursuant to NRS 645.760. At the district court level, respondent’s “Petition” stated that he was appealing the decision of the Commission.”
State of Nevada Dep't of Com. v. Soeller, 656 P.2d 224 (Nev. 1982). “Pursuant to NRS 645.760(2), Lund, Soeller and the Thomases appealed from the Commission’s orders to the district court.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 645.760(3) — 3 cases
State, Dep't of Com., Real Est. Div. v. Hyt, 611 P.2d 1096 (Nev. 1980). “Eight days later, respondent appealed and concurrently demanded a certified transcript pursuant to NRS 645.760. At the district court level, respondent’s “Petition” stated that he was appealing the decision of the Commission.”
State of Nevada Dep't of Com. v. Soeller, 656 P.2d 224 (Nev. 1982). “Pursuant to NRS 645.760(2), Lund, Soeller and the Thomases appealed from the Commission’s orders to the district court.”
Nolan v. State, Dep't of Com., 460 P.2d 153 (Nev. 1969). “The district court limited its decision to “whether there had been an abuse of discretion on the part of the commission in making such decision” as required by NRS 645.760(3). We agree that was proper and so limit our own review.”
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.