Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 703 - PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF NEVADA

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 703.373

Judicial review: Petition; participation of Commission and parties of record; transmission of record; service and filing of memoranda; scope of review; burden of proof; precedence of action; grounds for setting aside decision of Commission

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 703.373  Judicial review: Petition; participation of Commission and parties of record; transmission of record; service and filing of memoranda; scope of review; burden of proof; precedence of action; grounds for setting aside decision of Commission.

      1.  Any party of record to a proceeding before the Commission is entitled to judicial review of the final decision upon the exhaustion of all administrative remedies by the party of record seeking judicial review.

      2.  Proceedings for review may be instituted by filing a petition for judicial review in the District Court in and for Carson City, in and for the county in which the party of record seeking judicial review resides, or in and for the county where the act on which the proceeding is based occurred.

      3.  A petition for judicial review must be filed within 30 days after final action by the Commission on reconsideration or rehearing, or if the Commission takes no action on reconsideration or rehearing, within 30 days after the date on which reconsideration or rehearing is deemed denied. Copies of the petition for judicial review must be served upon the Commission and all other parties of record.

      4.  The Commission shall participate in the judicial review. Any party of record desiring to participate in the judicial review must file a statement of intent to participate in the petition for judicial review and serve the statement upon the Commission and every party within 15 days after service of the petition for judicial review.

      5.  Within 30 days after the service of the petition for judicial review or such time as is allowed by the court, the Commission shall transmit to the reviewing court a certified copy of the entire record of the proceeding under review, including a transcript of the evidence resulting in the final decision of the Commission. The record may be shortened by stipulation of the parties to the proceedings.

      6.  A petitioner who is seeking judicial review must serve and file a memorandum of points and authorities within 30 days after the Commission gives written notice to the parties that the record of the proceeding under review has been filed with the court.

      7.  The Commission and any other respondents shall serve and file a reply memorandum of points and authorities within 30 days after service of the memorandum of points and authorities. Upon service and filing of the reply memorandum by the Commission and any other respondents:

      (a) No further memoranda may be filed; and

      (b) The parties must be ready for a hearing upon 20 days’ notice.

      8.  Judicial review of a final decision of the Commission must be:

      (a) Conducted by the court without a jury; and

      (b) Confined to the record.

Ê In cases concerning alleged irregularities in procedure before the Commission that are not shown in the record, the court may receive evidence concerning the irregularities.

      9.  The final decision of the Commission shall be deemed reasonable and lawful until reversed or set aside in whole or in part by the court. The burden of proof is on the petitioner to show that the final decision is invalid pursuant to subsection 11.

      10.  All actions brought under this section have precedence over any civil action of a different nature pending in the court.

      11.  The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the Commission as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the Commission or set it aside in whole or in part if substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the final decision of the Commission is:

      (a) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

      (b) In excess of the statutory authority of the Commission;

      (c) Made upon unlawful procedure;

      (d) Affected by other error of law;

      (e) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record; or

      (f) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion.

      (Added to NRS by 1983, 965; A 2011, 938; 2021, 677)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2022 · leading case: Nevada Power Co. v. Eighth Judicial District Court of State of Nevada
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nevada Power Co. v. Eighth Judicial District Court of State of Nevada (2004) nev · cites it 7× “25 The PUC’s decision on a complaint against a public utility is subject to judicial review under NRS 703.373. 26 Judicial review under the statute is limited to the record, 27 and the court may set aside the PUC’s decision only under certain circumstances.”
Crane v. Continental Telephone Co. (1989) nev · cites it 7× “Rather than seeking judicial review of the PSC decision within ninety days pursuant to NRS 703.373, 1 Pension Trust filed a complaint in district court on June 25, 1986, more than six months after the PSC’s order was filed.”
Nevada Power Co. v. Public Utilities Commission (2006) nev · cites it 6× “2d 467, 468-69 (1978)); NRS 703.373(4), (6). 23 State, Emp.”
Manke Truck Lines, Inc. v. Public Service Commission (1993) nev · cites it 4× “Pursuant to NRS 703.373(1) (emphasis added), “[a]ny party of record to a proceeding before the [PSC] is entitled to judicial review of the final decision.”
Public Service Commission v. Eighth Judicial District Court (1991) nev · cites it 2× “NRS 703.373 (emphasis added) provides in relevant part: “1.”
RURAL TELEPHONE CO. VS. PUB. UTIL. COMM'N. OF NEV. (2017) nev · cites it 42× “The district court lacked the authority to grant Rural Telephone an extension of time to file its opening memorandum of points and authorities Rural Telephone argues that the district court read the statutory language and legislative history of NRS 703.373 too narrowly and…”
SOUTHWEST GAS CORP. v. PUB. UTILITIES COMM'N OF NEV. (2022) nev · cites it 22× “SWG's petition stated that the district court should apply NRS 703.373(11)s clearly erroneous standard of review.”
Silver Lake Water Distribution Co. v. Public Service Commission (1991) nev · cites it 2× “DISCUSSION The standard of judicial review for orders issued by the Commission is set forth in NRS 703.373(6). 3 Nevada courts have *954 traditionally upheld decisions by the Commission “if there is substantial evidence in the record to support its findings.”
PUBLIC SERV. COM'N v. Eighth Jud. D. Ct. (1991) nev · cites it 2× “NRS 703.373 (emphasis added) provides in relevant part: "1.”
RURAL TELEPHONE CO. VS. PUB. UTIL. COMM'N. OF NEV. (2017) nev · cites it 21× “The district court lacked the authority to grant Rural Telephone an extension of time to file its opening memorandum of points and authorities Rural Telephone argues that the district court read the statutory language and legislative history of NRS 703.373 too narrowly and…”
State, Dept. of Health and Human Serv's v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of Nev. (2015) nev “NRS 703.373(11); see also Nev. Power Co., <a href="/opinion/2631746/nevada-power-co-v-public-utilities-commission/#834" aria-description="Citation for case: Nevada Power Co.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 703.373(1) — 4 cases
Nevada Power Co. v. Eighth Judicial District Court of State of Nevada (2004) nev “25 The PUC’s decision on a complaint against a public utility is subject to judicial review under NRS 703.373. 26 Judicial review under the statute is limited to the record, 27 and the court may set aside the PUC’s decision only under certain circumstances.”
Manke Truck Lines, Inc. v. Public Service Commission (1993) nev “Pursuant to NRS 703.373(1) (emphasis added), “[a]ny party of record to a proceeding before the [PSC] is entitled to judicial review of the final decision.”
RURAL TELEPHONE CO. VS. PUB. UTIL. COMM'N. OF NEV. (2017) nev “The district court lacked the authority to grant Rural Telephone an extension of time to file its opening memorandum of points and authorities Rural Telephone argues that the district court read the statutory language and legislative history of NRS 703.373 too narrowly and…”
RURAL TELEPHONE CO. VS. PUB. UTIL. COMM'N. OF NEV. (2017) nev “The district court lacked the authority to grant Rural Telephone an extension of time to file its opening memorandum of points and authorities Rural Telephone argues that the district court read the statutory language and legislative history of NRS 703.373 too narrowly and…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 703.373(11) — 2 cases
SOUTHWEST GAS CORP. v. PUB. UTILITIES COMM'N OF NEV. (2022) nev “SWG's petition stated that the district court should apply NRS 703.373(11)s clearly erroneous standard of review.”
State, Dept. of Health and Human Serv's v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of Nev. (2015) nev “NRS 703.373(11); see also Nev. Power Co., <a href="/opinion/2631746/nevada-power-co-v-public-utilities-commission/#834" aria-description="Citation for case: Nevada Power Co.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 703.373(11)(e) — 1 case
SOUTHWEST GAS CORP. v. PUB. UTILITIES COMM'N OF NEV. (2022) nev “SWG's petition stated that the district court should apply NRS 703.373(11)s clearly erroneous standard of review.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 703.373(2) — 2 cases
RURAL TELEPHONE CO. VS. PUB. UTIL. COMM'N. OF NEV. (2017) nev “The district court lacked the authority to grant Rural Telephone an extension of time to file its opening memorandum of points and authorities Rural Telephone argues that the district court read the statutory language and legislative history of NRS 703.373 too narrowly and…”
RURAL TELEPHONE CO. VS. PUB. UTIL. COMM'N. OF NEV. (2017) nev “The district court lacked the authority to grant Rural Telephone an extension of time to file its opening memorandum of points and authorities Rural Telephone argues that the district court read the statutory language and legislative history of NRS 703.373 too narrowly and…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 703.373(3) — 2 cases
RURAL TELEPHONE CO. VS. PUB. UTIL. COMM'N. OF NEV. (2017) nev “The district court lacked the authority to grant Rural Telephone an extension of time to file its opening memorandum of points and authorities Rural Telephone argues that the district court read the statutory language and legislative history of NRS 703.373 too narrowly and…”
RURAL TELEPHONE CO. VS. PUB. UTIL. COMM'N. OF NEV. (2017) nev “The district court lacked the authority to grant Rural Telephone an extension of time to file its opening memorandum of points and authorities Rural Telephone argues that the district court read the statutory language and legislative history of NRS 703.373 too narrowly and…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 703.373(4) — 3 cases
Nevada Power Co. v. Eighth Judicial District Court of State of Nevada (2004) nev “25 The PUC’s decision on a complaint against a public utility is subject to judicial review under NRS 703.373. 26 Judicial review under the statute is limited to the record, 27 and the court may set aside the PUC’s decision only under certain circumstances.”
Nevada Power Co. v. Public Utilities Commission (2006) nev “2d 467, 468-69 (1978)); NRS 703.373(4), (6). 23 State, Emp.”
Manke Truck Lines, Inc. v. Public Service Commission (1993) nev “Pursuant to NRS 703.373(1) (emphasis added), “[a]ny party of record to a proceeding before the [PSC] is entitled to judicial review of the final decision.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 703.373(5) — 2 cases
RURAL TELEPHONE CO. VS. PUB. UTIL. COMM'N. OF NEV. (2017) nev “The district court lacked the authority to grant Rural Telephone an extension of time to file its opening memorandum of points and authorities Rural Telephone argues that the district court read the statutory language and legislative history of NRS 703.373 too narrowly and…”
RURAL TELEPHONE CO. VS. PUB. UTIL. COMM'N. OF NEV. (2017) nev “The district court lacked the authority to grant Rural Telephone an extension of time to file its opening memorandum of points and authorities Rural Telephone argues that the district court read the statutory language and legislative history of NRS 703.373 too narrowly and…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 703.373(6) — 6 cases
Nevada Power Co. v. Public Utilities Commission (2006) nev “2d 467, 468-69 (1978)); NRS 703.373(4), (6). 23 State, Emp.”
Nevada Power Co. v. Eighth Judicial District Court of State of Nevada (2004) nev “25 The PUC’s decision on a complaint against a public utility is subject to judicial review under NRS 703.373. 26 Judicial review under the statute is limited to the record, 27 and the court may set aside the PUC’s decision only under certain circumstances.”
Manke Truck Lines, Inc. v. Public Service Commission (1993) nev “Pursuant to NRS 703.373(1) (emphasis added), “[a]ny party of record to a proceeding before the [PSC] is entitled to judicial review of the final decision.”
Silver Lake Water Distribution Co. v. Public Service Commission (1991) nev “DISCUSSION The standard of judicial review for orders issued by the Commission is set forth in NRS 703.373(6). 3 Nevada courts have *954 traditionally upheld decisions by the Commission “if there is substantial evidence in the record to support its findings.”
RURAL TELEPHONE CO. VS. PUB. UTIL. COMM'N. OF NEV. (2017) nev “The district court lacked the authority to grant Rural Telephone an extension of time to file its opening memorandum of points and authorities Rural Telephone argues that the district court read the statutory language and legislative history of NRS 703.373 too narrowly and…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 703.373(6)(e) — 1 case
Nevada Power Co. v. Public Utilities Commission (2006) nev “2d 467, 468-69 (1978)); NRS 703.373(4), (6). 23 State, Emp.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 703.373(7) — 2 cases
RURAL TELEPHONE CO. VS. PUB. UTIL. COMM'N. OF NEV. (2017) nev “The district court lacked the authority to grant Rural Telephone an extension of time to file its opening memorandum of points and authorities Rural Telephone argues that the district court read the statutory language and legislative history of NRS 703.373 too narrowly and…”
RURAL TELEPHONE CO. VS. PUB. UTIL. COMM'N. OF NEV. (2017) nev “The district court lacked the authority to grant Rural Telephone an extension of time to file its opening memorandum of points and authorities Rural Telephone argues that the district court read the statutory language and legislative history of NRS 703.373 too narrowly and…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 703.373(9) — 1 case
SOUTHWEST GAS CORP. v. PUB. UTILITIES COMM'N OF NEV. (2022) nev “SWG's petition stated that the district court should apply NRS 703.373(11)s clearly erroneous standard of 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.