[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6327122,"mediaKeyId","2323042-8856f0cd86316fa7c2a8e3995e1fc397","parentId",2323042,"title","AB65 guardianship bill advances amid stakeholder concerns over investigator authority and notice timing","audioSeconds",950,"startMs",6139000,"endMs",7089000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2323042-8856f0cd86316fa7c2a8e3995e1fc397&start=6139&end=7089","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2323042-8856f0cd86316fa7c2a8e3995e1fc397/thumbnail_6139000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6327122/Nevada/AB65-guardianship-bill-advances-amid-stakeholder-concerns-over-investigator-authority-and-notice-timing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6327122-f77e4f5a6027a3182cb61d8323762bed/orig.mp4?Expires=1771091238&Signature=T-xexhfaxoLjXyBjhUygiKkO1Aal-2ulFim91ZffDdOEykSCGWnqa7o4MafaBgjn6BIYCJRYKoVouXCuy8txrVINdu-aIGx5nnb2Fkua~o6JKSSzWbzvYHUFw553HHlJkc0mi50wlg6JLbYi8RhnQJGyd1n1Pu4CPJNECp5sVh7McoTe9WAKLVVe~iNwKirT-kWkXWO5rkLC8O6LrQIthizr3XS0tAXNupoKvoCIiU2jvkwc3rWI3QrjUHhNBWOGTePADYXjxJ064OmEz6UbOAewnWwY~zcszGD6TbaseBqgO8E9XKPodQ80z5dl6u-JlFlt7RwWkuzBus3hFV8y1Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Nevada Legislature","date","2025-02-17T00:00:00Z","article","John McCormick, assistant court administrator for the Nevada Supreme Court, presented Assembly Bill 65 to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, describing the bill as the next step in a multi-year effort to modernize guardianship statutes and reduce previously documented abuses. The hearing was held in Carson City with participants from Las Vegas and callers on the public line.

McCormick said the bill would broaden the statutory duties of guardianship investigators to include assessing a proposed protected person's ability to care for themselves, locating relatives, and obtaining vital records such as birth and death certificates; the draft also referenced authorization for investigators to conduct fingerprint background checks, language McCormick said the sponsor intends to remove and instead route to the Guardianship Commission for policy development. \"It is our intent in this bill ... to remove this section and have the Guardianship Commission thoroughly vet the process,\" McCormick said. Section 3 would remove \"compliance\" from the name of the Administrative Office of the Courts' Guardianship Compliance Office to avoid giving the wrong impression that the office oversees courts or guardians.

Other provisions explained by McCormick include removing the statutory cap on staffing for the guardianship office (replacing the cap with staffing up to legislative appropriations), conforming special immigrant juvenile guardianship language into chapter 159A, adding alternate methods of service consistent with Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, allowing a protected minor to extend guardianship past age 21 if desired, and setting an effective date of July 1, 2025.

Support came from Catherine Nielsen of the Nevada Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities and Shauna Brennan, counsel for the Rights of Older Persons and Persons with Disabilities (ADFD), both of whom said they supported statutory changes to strengthen due process and protections for people with disabilities. Several practitioners and advocates flagged outstanding concerns. Jonathan Norman of the Nevada Coalition of Legal Service Providers said his group represents many proposed protected persons and is working with sponsors but remains in formal opposition until amendments resolve specific items; he called out an item that would require certain notices to be sent seven days before a hearing, saying that would disadvantage pro se litigants who sometimes get notice the same day. Practicing guardianship attorneys including Melissa Exline echoed support for the bill's goals but emphasized that investigators' reports should be made available sufficiently in advance so parties and counsel can prepare.

Sponsors and stakeholders told the committee they were actively negotiating amendments, including removing fingerprinting language from the bill text and refining service/notice provisions, and asked for additional work on technical language before the work session. The committee took testimony and closed the hearing; no committee vote occurred that day.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2/17/2025 - Assembly Committee on Judiciary","oneSentenceSummary","John McCormick, assistant court administrator for the Nevada Supreme Court, presented AB65 to update guardianship statutes, broaden investigators' duties and adjust staffing rules for the Guardianship Compliance Office.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature NV, Nevada","taxId",78440,"location","Nevada","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6327126,"Committee considers raising arbitration cap to $100,000 to speed civil cases and reduce court backlog",2861,3286000,6147000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2323042-8856f0cd86316fa7c2a8e3995e1fc397&start=3286&end=6147","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2323042-8856f0cd86316fa7c2a8e3995e1fc397/thumbnail_3286000.jpg","/articles/6327126/Nevada/Committee-considers-raising-arbitration-cap-to-100000-to-speed-civil-cases-and-reduce-court-backlog","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6327126-8de204909df1f07cd9dacd596730fba6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771091238&Signature=NllT4-jbLfuq-piRfW-ShUA5NSbcnofYDXvcSjN47bM4frl2XS~FTtEPDHvjC8yCQLe0yp8~ZxHBlhdOhVYy2pmFlqWIoWP1Yr-3~6G668kN1nJtInodZYivMAdsG5oaFnU-9ZBe~I1kBBpNIBp5sreWQXTNpnVnRx5G8ikS-tLWHvRWhvrP48s1b7RgGfrE8snm-R4M3iEpcWNVdvA99~gb5Joc~Semry3xDeS4vrV~IQCBYvE8dPR3pzO9aZicYokOSgdSuWkGkbsKLR7ZOkwPKfJXgIxIy0TdHxeYnGM1kbjx~0zPg18Ow~TSJBdO~vJCaa2X0YoVZ6O2NAe-DQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Erin Truman, an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) commissioner in the Eighth Judicial District Court, and Adam Gans, ADR commissioner in Clark County, presented Assembly Bill 3 to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The bill would raise the monetary cap for mandatory nonbinding arbitration under NRS 38.255 from $50,000 to $100,000 for cases filed on or after Jan. 1, 2026, with the stated goal of reducing district court dockets and providing faster, less costly access to justice.

Truman told the committee that mandatory arbitration and related short-trial programs are designed to be faster and less expensive than full juries: arbitration hearings usually finish within two to three hours and are required by rule to be completed within one year, while short trials are intended to last a single day. She cited program statistics showing a high resolution rate: \"Last year, 93 percent of the cases that proceeded to arbitration resolved as a result of the arbitration program,\" Truman said, arguing that increasing the cap would return the share of cases subject to arbitration toward earlier levels (50–60% of answered civil cases) and reduce multi-year delays in district courts.

Presenters and committee members discussed procedural details and concerns. Assembly members asked about the relaxed rules of evidence in arbitration and short trials; Truman replied that evidentiary rules are \"relaxed,\" not eliminated, with examples such as using a custodian-of-record certificate in place of live authentication for medical records. Members also raised questions about the record on appeal when short trials are not transcribed; Truman and Gans said parties may bring a court reporter at their own expense or rely on recent Nevada appellate-rule changes that allow authentication by affidavit or audio where appropriate. Questions about costs and access for low-income litigants prompted presenters to note indigency protections and mechanisms by which arbitrators and short-trial judges can waive fees or receive pro bono credit.

Supporters who testified included Roberta Ohlinger Johnson, chair of the Creditors Bar section of the Nevada Bar, and Shirley Blazeich, an arbitrator and chair of the ADR section of the State Bar; both described the program as an access-to-justice benefit that provides timely, certain hearings. Justin Watkins of the Nevada Justice Association said his group was officially opposed at the time of the hearing but was negotiating amendments with sponsors and expected to work toward an agreed text before work session.

The committee took testimony and asked detailed procedural questions but did not take a final vote. Sponsors indicated willingness to work with stakeholders on technical amendments and potential automatic adjustment mechanisms for the cap.","Presenters for AB3 proposed raising the mandatory nonbinding arbitration cap from $50,000 to $100,000 to move more civil cases into arbitration, shorten resolution times and reduce district court dockets; stakeholders asked questions about evidentiary rules, appellate records and access for low-income litigants.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6327131,"Nevada Gaming Control Board details operations and backs AB58 to speed technology approvals",1631,1173000,2804000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2323042-8856f0cd86316fa7c2a8e3995e1fc397&start=1173&end=2804","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2323042-8856f0cd86316fa7c2a8e3995e1fc397/thumbnail_1173000.jpg","/articles/6327131/Nevada/Nevada-Gaming-Control-Board-details-operations-and-backs-AB58-to-speed-technology-approvals","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6327131-6f4b036ee58402a68caf2ab14a48c39f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771091238&Signature=KpJcsk~ias~90ShlG2Zod0LXBEf05qJmgenwerfwntqBSQvAdssPIvuanc94~ElwtBTyauEHhk6Ze0Nsm~VmNcViXRAwJdefu0wfatrOgAeEBz~B0Ab9sIlo4wsje4~d~klUKSNjtNKUDYzNwhmLu7uYC~Pg3TCcR7ExdXphbclR9mfAhXZlK9qWtiAEzYDONVc1iiowKEeeEjIjVIp0UZanV5blv0xb-K1~n550F~tESCVP-x0Phlp6dGMCY1p59ket0UBbNO7P3kZFyVIpCPFzmCP0O-F~rrpR~hn7xI9K6tLyVHP~G3W0ycNX3xWTFO~5KjBKCoT21bQOFUaVdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Kirk Hendrick, chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, told the Assembly Judiciary Committee in a hybrid hearing that the board is proposing statutory changes in Assembly Bill 58 to speed regulatory approval of gaming technology and simplify registration requirements. The presentation and bill hearing were held in Carson City with staff and witnesses also appearing from Las Vegas.

The bill would amend provisions in Nevada Revised Statutes chapters 463 and 465 to allow administrative approval by the board chair — rather than requiring a separate board recommendation and Nevada Gaming Commission agenda item — for some new games and gaming devices that have already completed independent testing and internal review. \"Administrative approval would allow for a new game or gaming device to be offered to the public for play faster without compromising the game's integrity,\" Hendrick said. He noted that board review currently adds roughly 50–60 days to approvals and that most new games and devices already pass laboratory and field testing before commission consideration.

The bill also proposes removing the separate statutory registration for some cash access and ticket-in/ticket-out devices because those entities already register as associated-equipment manufacturers, and eliminating duplicative statutory terms such as \"system-based\" and \"system-supported\" games. Sebastian Ross, senior policy counsel for the board, said the changes \"would rid the industry of an unnecessary gaming registration\" for devices that carry minimal additional regulatory risk once tested and approved.

During Q&A, technology division chief Jim Barbee explained that manufacturers of ticket-in/ticket-out hardware would still register as associated-equipment manufacturers, that registrations are handled by the investigations division and are valid for five years, and that the product-review process still requires independent test-lab verification and field testing when applicable. Virginia Valentine, president of the Nevada Resort Association, testified in support of AB58.

The board framed the bill as a narrowly tailored effort to keep Nevada competitive for new gaming innovations while preserving the multi-step safety checks that include independent testing labs, internal board review, and the commission's historic oversight. No final vote occurred at the hearing; the committee took testimony and closed the public record for the item.

AB58 will return to the committee for further consideration and any amendments identified during stakeholder discussions.","Chair Kirk Hendrick and board staff gave the Assembly Judiciary Committee an overview of the Nevada Gaming Control Board and presented Assembly Bill 58, which would streamline administrative approvals for new games and related technology and remove duplicative registrations for certain cash/ticket devices.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

AB65 guardianship bill advances amid stakeholder concerns over investigator authority and notice timing

Committee considers raising arbitration cap to $100,000 to speed civil cases and reduce court backlog

Nevada Gaming Control Board details operations and backs AB58 to speed technology approvals