Brunson Vs. State, Dep'T Of Bus. And Indus.

Nevada Supreme Court

Brunson Vs. State, Dep'T Of Bus. And Indus.

DecidedMay 7, 2021

Docket82381

StatusPublished

This text of Brunson Vs. State, Dep'T Of Bus. And Indus. (Brunson Vs. State, Dep'T Of Bus. And Indus.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brunson Vs. State, Dep'T Of Bus. And Indus., (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MICHAEL L. BRUNSON, No. 82381 Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY, REAL ESTATE DIVISION; SHARATH CHANDRA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS FILED ADMINISTRATOR OF THE REAL MAY 0 7 2021 ESTATE DIVISION; NEVADA ELIZABEri A. BROWN COMMISSION OF APPRAISERS OF CLERK OF SUPREME COURT

REAL ESTATE; AND CHRISTOPHER BY R.K LAUGER IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE NEVADA COMMISSION OF APPRAISERS OF REAL ESTATE, Res ondents.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is an appeal from a district court order on a petition for judicial review of a findings of fact, conclusions of law and order entered by the Nevada Commission of Appraisers of Real Estate (Commission), wherein appellant was disciplined. Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, appellant has filed an opposition, and respondents have filed a reply. The order challenged on appeal upholds the Commission's findings of fact and all conclusions of law except for conclusion of law G. In regard to conclusion of law 6, the challenged order remands to the Commission to determine "what evidence, if any, supports Conclusion of Law 6 and re-evaluate the discipline ordered based upon the Commission's assessment of Conclusion of Law 6." The challenged order directs the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) IMTA ,21- )311 t.1 Commission to re-examine the evidence in relation to conclusion of law 6 and to re-evaluate its ordered discipline based upon the outcome of this re- examination. Thus, this court concludes that the challenged order is not the final judgment in this matter, and is therefore not appealable. See Wells Fargo Bank v. OBrien, 129 Nev. 679, 310 P.3d 581 (2013) (holding that, in the administrative context, an order remanding to an administrative agency is not appealable, unless it constitutes a final judgment on the merits and remands merely for collateral tasks , such as calculating benefits found due). The motion to dismiss is granted, and this court ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

06"ialre7utr. Parraguirre

J. Stiglich Silver

cc: Hon. David M. Jones, District Judge Janet Trost, Settlement Judge Lipson Neilson P.C. Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

10) I947A oleo 2 . • . Ao-^

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MICHAEL L. BRUNSON, No. 82381 Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY, REAL ESTATE DIVISION; SHARATH CHANDRA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS FILED ADMINISTRATOR OF THE REAL MAY 0 7 2021 ESTATE DIVISION; NEVADA ELIZABEri A. BROWN COMMISSION OF APPRAISERS OF CLERK OF SUPREME COURT

REAL ESTATE; AND CHRISTOPHER BY R.K LAUGER IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE NEVADA COMMISSION OF APPRAISERS OF REAL ESTATE, Res ondents.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is an appeal from a district court order on a petition for judicial review of a findings of fact, conclusions of law and order entered by the Nevada Commission of Appraisers of Real Estate (Commission), wherein appellant was disciplined. Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, appellant has filed an opposition, and respondents have filed a reply. The order challenged on appeal upholds the Commission's findings of fact and all conclusions of law except for conclusion of law G. In regard to conclusion of law 6, the challenged order remands to the Commission to determine "what evidence, if any, supports Conclusion of Law 6 and re-evaluate the discipline ordered based upon the Commission's assessment of Conclusion of Law 6." The challenged order directs the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) IMTA ,21- )311 t.1 Commission to re-examine the evidence in relation to conclusion of law 6 and to re-evaluate its ordered discipline based upon the outcome of this re- examination. Thus, this court concludes that the challenged order is not the final judgment in this matter, and is therefore not appealable. See Wells Fargo Bank v. OBrien, 129 Nev. 679, 310 P.3d 581 (2013) (holding that, in the administrative context, an order remanding to an administrative agency is not appealable, unless it constitutes a final judgment on the merits and remands merely for collateral tasks , such as calculating benefits found due). The motion to dismiss is granted, and this court ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

06"ialre7utr. Parraguirre

J. Stiglich Silver

cc: Hon. David M. Jones, District Judge Janet Trost, Settlement Judge Lipson Neilson P.C. Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

10) I947A oleo 2 . • . Ao-^

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brunson Vs. State, Dep'T Of Bus. And Indus., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brunson-vs-state-dept-of-bus-and-indus-nev-2021.

Opinion

J. Stiglich Silver

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack