Nevada 2019 Regular Session Status: Enacted

SB 554 — Revises provisions governing application of the legislative continuance statute in certain judicial or administrative proceedings. (BDR 1-90)

Last action — Chapter 564.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Senate
  4. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced May 31, 2019. Enacted.

Prognosis

Advancing 50% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

AN ACT relating to state governmental operations; revising provisions governing application of the legislative continuance statute in certain judicial or administrative proceedings; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.

Bill Text

What changed in the latest version

165 added · 175 removed

165 line(s) added, 175 removed.

→
Previous
Latest
EXEMPT S.B.
Senate Bill No.
554 SENATE BILL NO .
554–Committee on Judiciary CHAPTER..........
554–COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY (O NB EHALF OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL ) M AY 31, 2019 ____________ Referred to Committee on Judiciary SUMMARY—Revises provisions governing application of the legislative continuance statute in certain judicial or administrative proceedings.
(BDR 1-90) FISCAL NOTE:
Effect on Local Government:
No.
Effect on the State:
No.
~ EXPLANATION – Matter in bolded italics is new;
matter between brackets [omitted material] is material to be omitted.
LegUnder existing law, the common-law rules developed in England are generally the rules of decision that govern in all the courts of this State unless:
Legislative Counsel’s Digest:
Under existing law, the common-law rules developed in England are generally the rules of decision that govern in all the courts of this State unless:
60, 64 (1949) (“Nevada has by statute adopted the principles of the common law and has in a number of instances modified the common law by statutory enactment.”)) Under the common-law rules, the court was not bound to recognize the lawyer-legislator’s required attendance atr, a legislative session as a sufficient cause to grant a continuance of the judicial proceedings during the legislative session.
60, 64 (1949) (“Nevada has by statute adopted the principles of the common law and has in a number of instances modified the common law by statutory enactment.”)) Under the common-law rules, if a lawyer representing a party in judicial proceedings was also a state legislator, a legislative session as a sufficient cause to grant a continuance of the judicialt proceedings during the legislative session.
481, 483 (Ill.
481, (Ill.
1927) (“At common law attendance on the sessions of a legislative body was not a cause for a continuance which a court was bound to recognize.”)) However, in exercising its judicial discretion in a particular case, the court was not required attendance at the legislative session.odate the lawyer-legislator’s Starting in the late 1800s, state legislatures began enacting legislative continuance statutes with the intent to abrogate the common-law rules and statutorily establish that a lawyer-legislator’s attendance at a legislative session is a “sufficient cause” for a continuance which the court is bound to recognize.
1927) (“At common law attendance on the sessions of a legislative body was not a cause for a continuance which a court was bound to recognize.”)) However, in exercising its judicial discretion in a particular case, the court was not precluded from granting a continuance to accommodate the lawyer-legislator’s required attendance at the legislative session.
(St.
Starting in the late 1800s, state legislatures began enacting legislative continuance statutes with the intent to abrogate the common-law rules and “sufficient cause” for a continuance which the court is bound to recognize.
- *SB554* – 2 – Louis & Se.
(St.sion is a Louis & Se.
Thatch, 195 S.W.2d 106, 107- 08 (Mo.
Thatch, 195 S.W.2d 106, 107- (Mo.
§ 3.16;
§ 11.111;
Miss.
Ga.
Code.
Code Ann.
§ 9-10-150;
La.
Stat.
§ 11-1-9;
§ 13:4163;
Mo.
Minn.
Ann.
§ 510.120;
Ann.
N.Y.
§ Okl.
Jud.
Law § 469;
12 Okl.
§ 20-7-106;
§ 20-7-106;9;
and (2) the right to due process of law by denying litigants timely access to the courts when a substantial existing right or interest will be defeated or abridged by For example, in some states, courts have struck down legislative continuance statutes as facially unconstitutional when the statutory language is not capable of a constitutional interpretation because the language requires mandatory continuances in all cases and fails to provide the objecting party, in certain exceptional cases, with a reasonable opportunity to prove that as a direct result of emergency or extraordinary circumstances, a substantial existing right or interest will be defeated or abridged by the requested continuance and the party will thereby suffer substantial and immediate irreparable harm.
and (2) the right to due process of law by denying litigants timely access to the courts when a substantial existing right or interest will be defeated or abridged by tFor example, in some states, courts have struck down legislative continuance statutes as facially unconstitutional when the statutory language is not capable of a constitutional interpretation because the language requires mandatory continuances - 80th Session (2019) – 2 – in all cases and fails to provide the objecting party, in certain exceptional cases, with a reasonable opportunity to prove that as a direct result of emergency or extraordinary circumstances, a substantial existing right or interest will be defeated or abridged by the requested continuance and the party will thereby suffer substantial and immediate irreparable harm.
Co., 506 P.2d 1279, 1282-84 (Alaska 1973)) By contrast, in other states, courts have upheld legislative continuance statutes as facially constitutional when the statutory language is capable of a constitutional interpretation because, even though the language requires mandatory continuances in most cases, the language is nevertheless interpreted to provide the objecting party, in certain exceptional cases, with a reasonable opportunity to prove that as a direct result of emergency or extraordinary circumstances, a substantial existing right or interest will be defeated or abridged by the requested continuance and the Theodoron, 155 N.E.
Co., 506 P.2d 1279, 1282-84 (Alaska 1973)) By contrast, in other states, courts have upheld legislative continuance statutes as facially constitutional when the statutory language is capable of a constitutional interpretation because, even though the language requires mandatory continuances in most cases, the language is nevertheless interpreted to provide the objecting party, in certain exceptional cases, with a reasonable opportunity to prove that as a direct result of emergency or extraordinary circumstances, a substantial existing right or interest will be defeated or abridged by the requested continuance and the party will thereby suffer substantial and immediate irreparable harm.
(Johnson v.
Theodoron, 155 N.E.
Koerper, 207 S.W.2d 46, 48-49.
Koerper, 207 S.W.2d 46, 48-49 (Mo.
(Mo.
Bordon’s, Inc., 262 S.E.2d 881, 883-84 (S.C.
Bordon’s, Inc., 262 S.E.2d 881, 883-84 Chvala, 673 N.W.2d 401, 404-08 (Wis.
Show all 65 changed rows (25 more)
Previous
Latest
1980);
Strickland v.
State, 477 So.
2d 1347, 1348 (Miss.
1985);
State v.
Chvala, 673 N.W.2d 401, 404-08 (Wis.
(NRS 1.310) proceeding is a member of the Legislature or President of the Senate, that fact is sufficient cause for the adjournment or continuance of the action or proceeding for the duration of any legislative session.
(NRS 1.310) Under the existing statute, if a party to any judicial or administrative action or proceeding is a member of the Legislature or President of the Senate, that fact is sufficient cause for the adjournment or continuance of the action or proceeding for the duration of any legislative session.
The existing statute also provides that if an attorney for a party to any judicial or administrative action or proceeding was actually employed before the commencement of any legislative session and is a - *SB554* – 3 – member of the Legislature or President of the Senate, that fact is sufficient cause for the adjournment or continuance of the action or proceeding for the duration of any legislative session.
The existing statute also provides that if an attorney for a party to any judicial or administrative action or proceeding was actually employed before the commencement of any legislative session and is a member of the Legislature or President of the Senate, that fact is sufficient cause for the adjournment or continuance of the action or proceeding for the duration of any legislative session.
In 2017, a state district court in Clark County found that Nevada’s existing separation of powers doctrine of the Nevada Constitution by allowing theolates the legislature to commandeer the inherent power of the judiciary to govern its own procedures, removing all discretion from the Court.” (Degraw v.
In 2017, a state district court in Clark County found that Nevada’s existing legislative continuance statute is “unconstitutional as written as it violates the separation of powers doctrine of the Nevada Constitution by allowing the legislature to commandeer the inherent power of the judiciary to govern its own Ct., 134 Nev.
Eighth Jud.
Dist.
Ct., 134 Nev.
In those instances, the Court must be able to be allowed to exercise discretion.” (Degraw, 419 P.3d at 138) Following the district court’s decision, a writ petition decision.
In those instances, the Court must be able to be allowed to exercise discretion.” (Degraw, 419 P.3d at 138) Following the district court’s decision, a writ petition was filed with the Nevada Supreme Court seeking review of the district court’s decision.
Therefore, the Nevada Supreme Court did not reach the merits of whether Nevada’s existing legislative continuance statute is unconstitutional as written.
Therefore, the Nevada Supreme Court did not reach the - 80th Session (2019) – 3 – merits of whether Nevada’s existing legislative continuance statute is unconstitutional as written.
Section 1 also provides that the continuance is effective for the duration of the legislative session and for an additional 7 calendar days following the session, unless a shorter period is requested by the person asking for the continuance.
Section 1 also provides that the continuance is effective for the duration of the legislative session and for an additional 7 calendar days following the session, unless a shorter period is the continuance must be granted without the imposition of any bond, costs or othert terms.
Section 1 further provides that the continuance must be granted without the imposition of any bond, costs or other continuance, the court or administrative body cannot deny the requesteduested continuance, in whole or in part, unless the objecting party satisfies the burden to prove that, as a direct result of emergency or extraordinary circumstances, the objecting party:
Finally, section 1 provides that if any party objects to the requested continuance, the court or administrative body cannot deny the requested continuance, in whole or in part, unless the objecting party satisfies the burden to prove that, as a direct result of emergency or extraordinary circumstances, the objecting party:
(1) has a substantial existing right or interest that will be defeated or abridged if the requested continuance is granted;
(1) has a substantial existing right or interest that will be defeated and immediate irreparable harm if the requested continuance is granted.r substantial EXPLANATION – Matter in bolded italics is new;
and (2) will suffer substantial and immediate irreparable harm if the requested continuance is granted.
matter between brackets [omitted material] is material to be omitted.
(1) A party to any action or proceeding in any court or before any administrative body [is a member of the Legislature of the State - *SB554* – 4 – of Nevada, or is President of the Senate, that fact is sufficient cause for the adjournment or continuance of the action or proceeding, including, without limitation, any discovery or other pretrial or posttrial matter involved in the action or proceeding, for the duration of any legislative session.
(1) A party to any action or proceeding in any court or before any administrative body [is a member of the Legislature of the State of Nevada, or is President of the Senate, that fact is sufficient cause for the adjournment or continuance of the action or proceeding, including, without limitation, any discovery or other pretrial or posttrial matter involved in the action or proceeding, for the duration of any legislative session.
and (c) Files with the court or administrative body a motion or request for a continuance of the action or proceeding pursuant to this section, the court or administrative body shall grant the continuance of the action or proceeding, including, without limitation, any discovery or other pretrial or posttrial matter involved in the action or proceeding, subject to the provisions of subsection 2.
and - 80th Session (2019) – 4 – (c) Files with the court or administrative body a motion or request for a continuance of the action or proceeding pursuant to this section, the court or administrative body shall grant the continuance of the action or proceeding, including, without limitation, any discovery or other pretrial or posttrial matter involved in the action or proceeding, subject to the provisions of subsection 2.
ord for an additional 7 (2) A shorter period if requested by the person who filed the mot(b) Granted without the imposition of any bond, costs or other terms.
ord for an additional 7 (2) A shorter period if requested by the person who filed the motion or request for a continuance of the action or proceeding.
(b) Granted without the imposition of any bond, costs or other terms.
- *SB554* – 5 – Sec.
Sec.
H - *SB554*
~~~~~ 19 - 80th Session (2019)
⬇ Download PDF
View plain text versions (2)

Action History

  1. Chapter 564.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and delivered to Governor.

  4. In Senate. To enrollment.

  5. Read third time. Passed. Title approved. (Yeas: 21, Nays: None.) To Assembly. In Assembly. Read first time. Referred to Committee on Judiciary. To committee. From committee: Do pass. Declared an emergency measure under the Constitution. Read third time. Passed. Title approved. (Yeas: 41, Nays: None, Vacant: 1.) To Senate.

  6. From printer. To committee. From committee: Do pass. Placed on Second Reading File. Read second time.

  7. Read first time. Referred to Committee on Judiciary. To printer.

Sponsors

  • Senate Committee on Judiciary · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 66 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Senate Committee on Judiciary

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (66)

66 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 66 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

housing healthcare
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 554 do?
AN ACT relating to state governmental operations; revising provisions governing application of the legislative continuance statute in certain judicial or administrative proceedings; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Who sponsors SB 554?
SB 554 is sponsored by Senate Committee on Judiciary.
What is the current status of SB 554?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced May 31, 2019. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 554?
Track SB 554 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 554

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 554

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →