Opinion ID: 2627458
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Nevada's legislative intent

Text: Nellis Motors argues that the appropriate evidentiary standard should be clear and convincing evidence because when the DMV seeks to revoke emissions licenses under NRS 445B.790 and 445B.800, it is essentially alleging fraud. [4] We disagree. In Nevada, a plaintiff must prove a general civil fraud claim, which requires intent to defraud, with clear and convincing evidence. [5] When revoking an emission license under NRS 445B.790(2), the DMV must show that the licensee intentionally or negligently issued a fraudulent emissions certificate. Further, [a] fraudulent certificate includes, but is not limited to: (1)[a] backdated certificate; (2)[a] postdated, certificate; and (3)[a] certificate issued without an inspection. [6] Thus, the term fraudulent certificate does not necessarily require deceitful intent, but includes negligently failing to follow the statutory requirements. In other words, an emission-license revocation is distinguishable from civil fraud because the inspector may negligently issue a fraudulent certificate, while civil fraud occurs only when there is intentional deceit. Thus, we conclude that the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard that governs in the civil fraud cases does not apply in this case because the statutory scheme allows the DMV to prove its case by negligence, [7] which requires a lesser evidentiary standard than civil fraud. Our conclusion is also consistent with Nevada's regulatory rules, which distinguish emissions fraud from general civil fraud. For example, NAC 445B.463(1)(h)(1) allows the DMV to revoke a station-emissions license if the defendant misrepresents a fact either intentionally or with gross negligence. In sum, we conclude that if the Legislature wanted a heightened evidentiary standard, it would not have provided for the DMV to prove its case by mere negligence standards.