Case library
Nevada family-law decisions, briefed for practice.
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.
64 results for “NRS 125.150(3)”
FASSARI VS. FASSARI (FAMILY)
Oct 23, 202525-46389 · 90183-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.**Standard of review.** The court reviewed the district court's determination of personal jurisdiction de novo, citing Fulbright & Jaworski LLP v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. 30, 35, 342 P.3d 997, 1001 (2015). It…
HE VS. SU
Jul 10, 202323-21969 · 85068-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.The Court of Appeals reviewed both the grant of NRCP 60(b) relief and the modification of the alimony obligation for abuse of discretion, citing Rodriguez v. Fiesta Palms, LLC, 134 Nev. 654, 656, 428 P.3d 255, 257…
BELLISARIO VS. BELLISARIO (CHILD CUSTODY)
Sep 16, 202222-29109 · 84128 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.The court reviewed the procedural due process challenge de novo under Callie v. Bowling, 123 Nev. 181, 183, 160 P.3d 878, 879 (2007), and concluded that conducting trial on the noticed date did not violate due process…
FRANE VS. FRANE (CHILD CUSTODY)
Aug 22, 202323-27419 · 85498-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed. ("ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.")**Standard of review.** The court reviewed custody determinations for abuse of discretion, affirming if supported by substantial evidence. Locklin v. Duka, 112 Nev. 1489, 1493, 929 P.2d 930, 933 (1996); Ellis v.…
HERNANDEZ-BASILIO VS. MARQUEZ-HERNANDEZ (CHILD CUSTODY)
Oct 13, 202323-33548 · 84487-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed. ("ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.")The Court of Appeals reviewed each of Edgar's claims under the abuse-of-discretion standard. On physical custody, the court applied Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996), reviewing custody…
MCNABNEY VS. MCNABNEY (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Nov 27, 1989105 Nev. 652, 782 P.2d 1291 (1989) · 17755 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed; cross-appeal dismissed. (Springer, J.; Mowbray, J., and Gunderson, Sr. J., concurring.)The court affirmed an unequal (80/20) division of a single item of community property - a contingent legal fee paid as an annuity - clarifying the governing standard under NRS 125.150(1). The dispositive question was…
HEIM VS. HEIM (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Oct 28, 1988104 Nev. 605, 763 P.2d 678 (1988) · 18240 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded for a new trial on the issue of alimony; cross-appeal dismissed. (Springer, J.; Gunderson, C.J., Steffen, Young, and Mowbray, JJ., concurring.)The court reversed a $500-per-month alimony award as an abuse of discretion, holding it was not, as a matter of law, 'just and equitable' under NRS 125.150(1) following a 35-year marriage. An appellate court will…
FONDI VS. FONDI (RETIREMENT DIVISION)
Dec 7, 1990106 Nev. 856, 802 P.2d 1264 (1990) · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded for recalculation of the community interest in the husband's pension; affirmed in all other respects (including the denial of alimony and the refusal to retain jurisdiction over future alimony).Per Curiam. Applying Gemma v. Gemma, 105 Nev. 458, 778 P.2d 429 (1989), the Court held the district court erred by valuing the community pension interest as if the employee spouse retired at the time of the proceedings.…
BUCHANAN VS. BUCHANAN (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Jun 5, 197490 Nev. 209, 523 P.2d 1 (1974) · 7306 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.Applying the abuse-of-discretion standard, the court affirmed a divorce decree's child support award and its denial of alimony. Child support under NRS 125.140(1) turns on the child's reasonable needs and the father's…
LOFGREN VS. LOFGREN (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Nov 7, 1996112 Nev. 1282, 926 P.2d 296 (1996) · 27244 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed. The district court's judgment, including the unequal disposition of community property, was affirmed.By the Court, Springer, J. (Steffen, C.J., Young, Shearing, and Rose, JJ., concurring). The court affirmed an unequal disposition of community property, interpreting for the first time the 1993 amendment to NRS 125.150,…
BYRD VS. BYRD
Sep 30, 2021137 Nev. Adv. Op. 60, 501 P.3d 458 (Ct. App. 2021) · 80548-COA · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded.Standard of review. The denial or grant of a motion under NRCP 60(b) is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with no deference to legal error. Cook v. Cook, 112 Nev. 179, 181-82, 912 P.2d 264, 265 (1996); AA Primo…
DRASKOVICH VS. DRASKOVICH
Mar 21, 2024140 Nev. Adv. Op. 17, 545 P.3d 96 (2024) · 84998 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.Standard of review: factual classification of property is reviewed for substantial evidence, but application of a presumption is reviewed de novo. Waldman v. Maini, 124 Nev. 1121, 1128, 195 P.3d 850, 855 (2008). Alimony…
BARBER VS. BARBER (CHILD CUSTODY)
Feb 17, 202222-05304 · 83201-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Reversed and remanded ("ORDER this matter REVERSED AND REMAND to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order").Standard of review: A motion to set aside a default judgment "is addressed largely to the sound discretion of the court, and will not be disturbed on review unless there has been an abuse of discretion." Cicerchia v.…
LESLEY VS. LESLEY (DIVORCE)
Jun 17, 1997113 Nev. 727; 941 P.2d 451 · 29116 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.The court reversed the denial of an NRCP 60(b)(1) motion to set aside a default divorce decree. Under NRCP 60(b), the district court has wide discretion, but that discretion cannot be sustained absent competent evidence…
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.