Highroller Transp. v. Nev. Transp. Auth.

Summary

The court affirmed the district court's denial of Highroller's federal-preemption challenge because Highroller did not raise the issue before the administrative hearing officer, did not develop an evidentiary record supporting jurisdictional preemption, and stipulated to an informal disposition that waived further findings. The court held that arguments generally must be raised before the hearing officer in an NTA contested case and that a bare preemption assertion at the later general session was insufficient to establish that the NTA lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also held that the stipulation prevented Highroller from later challenging the absence of factual findings concerning the restriction's safety purpose.