Nev. Rev. Stat. § 706.341

Operator of tow car required to notify Authority of discontinuance of towing services from operating terminal or establishment of new operating terminal; other common motor carriers prohibited from discontinuing service without order of Authority

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 706.341 Operator of tow car required to notify Authority of discontinuance of towing services from operating terminal or establishment of new operating terminal; other common motor carriers prohibited from discontinuing service without order of Authority.

1. An operator of a tow car shall, in the manner prescribed by the Authority, notify the Authority if the operator discontinues providing towing services from an operating terminal or establishes a new operating terminal from which a tow car provides towing services within 30 days after the operator discontinues providing towing services from an operating terminal or commences operations at the new terminal.

2. A common motor carrier, other than an operator of a tow car, authorized to operate by NRS 706.011 to 706.791, inclusive, shall not discontinue any service established pursuant to the provisions of NRS 706.011 to 706.791, inclusive, and all other laws relating thereto and made applicable thereto by NRS 706.011 to 706.791, inclusive, without an order of the Authority granted only after public notice or hearing in the event of protest.

(Added to NRS by 1971, 699; A 1997, 1939, 2675; 1999, 492)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1983–1993 · leading case: Manke Truck Lines, Inc. v. Public Service Commission

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Manke Truck Lines, Inc. v. Public Service Commission (1993) nev · cites it 2× “The stated statutory basis for the revocation was NRS 706.341. Manke petitioned the district court for judicial review, and the district court “denied” 1 the petition on the sole basis that the decision of the PSC was supported by substantial evidence.”

Gray Line Tours of Southern Nevada, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court (1983) nev “Specifically, Bonnie Springs contended that Gray Line had violated NRS 706.341. The body of the letter read: This is in response to the above-captioned complaint regarding Gray Line Tours of Southern Nevada and their service to Bonnie Springs Ranch and Old Nevada.”

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.