Case library
Nevada family-law decisions, briefed for practice.
8 decisions, organized by topic. Practitioner summaries with key holdings, posture, disposition, and the statutes cited - up front, where you need them. Every summary links to the full opinion.
Case Library = case briefs of the decisions themselves. For long-form explainers of the governing law, Guides; for the exact quotable passages, verified verbatim, the Canon.
4 cases · counsel of record Smith Jain Stutzman · Custody & Relocation
MIZRACHI VS. MIZRACHI, JR. (CHILD CUSTODY)
Oct 22, 202424-39875 · 86508-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed. ("ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.")The panel reviewed each of Dory's six assignments of error under the applicable standards and affirmed. Finality of the March 2022 order. Dory contended the March 2022 order was a final order resolving Eli's motion to…
DAVITIAN-KOSTANIAN VS. KOSTANIAN
Aug 31, 2023139 Nev. Adv. Op. 27, 534 P.3d 700 (2023) · 84086 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.Standard of review. Statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo. Arguello v. Sunset Station, Inc., 127 Nev. 365, 368, 252 P.3d 206, 208 (2011). Child support and alimony rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.…
CALDERON VS. STIPP (CHILD CUSTODY)
Apr 11, 202222-11283 · 81888-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed. ("ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.")Standard of review: District courts have "broad discretionary powers in determining questions of child custody," and the appellate court "will not disturb the trial court's determinations absent a clear abuse of…
HARRISON VS. HARRISON (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jul 28, 2016132 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (2016) · 66157 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.The court reviewed the district court's denial of modification under an abuse of discretion standard. See Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 241 (2007). The opinion situates the analysis at the…
Every summary is independently verified against the source opinion; summaries are informational research aids, not legal advice, and no substitute for reading the decision. Topic groupings are derived automatically from each case’s category tag and cited statutes; a case may appear under two topics.