eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Nevada Supreme Court
 2015-07

Bowles v. Ruan Transp. ( 2015 )


Menu:
 
  •
    23 P.3d 255
    , 258 (2001) ("[W]hen the language of a statute is plain and
unambiguous, a court should give that language its ordinary meaning and
not go beyond it.").
Second, we conclude that although the appeal officer abused
her discretion in admitting the two newspaper articles about Bowles'
felony conviction into evidence, the abuse did not affect Bowles'
substantial rights.    See M.C. Multi-Family Dev., L.L.C. v. Crestdale
Assocs.,
    124 Nev. 901
    , 913,
    193 P.3d 536
    , 544 (2008) (stating that we
review evidentiary decisions for an abuse of discretion); see also NRCP 61.
The articles did not affect Bowles' substantial rights because Bowles
admitted to the appeal officer that he had been convicted of a felony.
Third, we conclude that the appeal officer did not abuse her
discretion in affording Bowles' testimony no weight.        See MC. Multi-
Family Dev., 124 Nev. at 913,
    193 P.3d at 544
    . Per NRS 50.095(1),
Bowles' felony conviction could be one of the factors in the appeal officer's
credibility determination. Determining how much weight to afford
Bowles' testimony was the appeal officer's decision to make. See DeChant
v. State,
    116 Nev. 918
    , 924,
    10 P.3d 108
    , 112 (2000) ("[I]t is exclusively
within the province of the trier of fact to weigh evidence and pass on the
credibility of witnesses and their testimony." (internal quotations
omitted)); see also Nev. Indus. Comm'n v. Reese,
    93 Nev. 115
    , 120-22,
    560 P.2d 1352
    , 1354-56 (1977) (explaining that administrative agencies are
imbued with the power to perform functions that are quasi-judicial in
nature, such as the weighing of evidence).
Finally, we conclude that the appeal officer did not clearly err
in finding that substantial evidence supported the proffered reason for
Bowles' expulsion—copyright infringement.      See State Emp. Sec. Dept. v.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A    -41bo
Hilton Hotels Corp.,
    102 Nev. 606
    , 608, n.1,
    729 P.2d 497
    , 498 n.1 (1986)
(explaining that we will not reverse an administrative agency's factual
finding even if "it is against the great weight and clear preponderance of
the evidence"), superseded by statute on other ground as stated in
Countrywide Home Loans v. Thitchener,
    124 Nev. 725
    ,
    192 P.3d 243
    (2008). A reasonable mind could accept the supporting evidence, an email
and two letters, as adequately supporting the appeal officer's conclusion.'
Nassiri, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 27, 327 P.3d at 489 (stating that substantial
evidence "is evidence that a reasonable mind could accept as adequately
supporting the agency's conclusions"). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Saitta
gekuda                , J.
Pickering
cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge
Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas
Carson City Clerk
'We have considered the parties' remaining arguments and conclude
that they are without merit.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A    e