Nevada § 463.3666 - Judicial review: Additional evidence taken by Board or hearing examiner; review confined to record; court may affirm, remand or reverse

§ 463.3666. Judicial review: Additional evidence taken by Board or hearing examiner; review confined to record; court may affirm, remand or reverse

1. The reviewing court may, upon motion therefor, order that additional evidence in

the case be taken by the Board or the hearing examiner upon such terms and conditions

as the court deems just and proper. The motion must not be granted except upon a showing that the additional evidence

is material and necessary and that sufficient reason existed for failure to present

the evidence at the hearing conducted by the Board or the hearing examiner. The motion must be supported by an affidavit of the moving party or his or her counsel

showing with particularity the materiality and necessity of the additional evidence

and the reason why it was not introduced in the administrative hearing. Rebuttal evidence to the additional evidence must be permitted. In cases in which additional evidence is presented to the Board or the hearing examiner,

the Board or the hearing examiner may modify the decisions and orders as the additional

evidence may warrant and shall file with the reviewing court a transcript of the additional

evidence together with any modifications of the decision and order, all of which become

a part of the record on review. 2. The review must be conducted by the court sitting without a jury, and must not

be a trial de novo but is confined to the record on review. The filing of briefs and oral argument must be made in accordance with the rules governing

appeals in civil cases unless the local rules of practice adopted in the judicial

district provide a different procedure. 3. The reviewing court may affirm the decision and order of the Board or the hearing

examiner, or it may remand the case for further proceedings or reverse the decision

if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the decision

is: (a) In violation of constitutional provisions; (b) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the Board or the hearing

examiner; (c) Made upon unlawful procedure; (d) Unsupported by any evidence; or (e) Arbitrary or capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law.