Opinion ID: 2627458
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The applicable standard of proof

Text: Nellis Motors contends that the administrative law judge erred in applying the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to these emission-license revocation proceedings. Instead, since the license-revocation statutes implicate fraudulent acts, Nellis Motors asserts that the applicable standard is the clear-and-convincing standard that applies in civil fraud actions. In addition, Nellis Motors argues that a license involves a constitutionally protected property right, the revocation of which requires the State to meet its burden by clear and convincing evidence. This court reviews de novo an administrative law judge's interpretation of the law. [1] As a preliminary matter, we recognize that the United States Supreme Court has stated that when Congress fails to clearly provide the burden of proof in an administrative proceeding, the judiciary may prescribe the appropriate standard. [2] Following the U.S. Supreme Court's lead, we conclude that absent a clear mandate by the Nevada Legislature, this court must determine the appropriate standard of proof in an administrative proceeding. [3] No statute governing the revocation of emissions-related licenses contains an evidentiary standard. Thus, we must determine the appropriate evidentiary standard in emission-license revocation proceedings. Considering the legislative intent behind the emissions-license revocation statute and procedural due process requirements, we conclude that the appropriate evidentiary standard for administratively revoking an emissions license is preponderance of the evidence.