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.
9 results for “NRAP 3A(b)(8)” in Divorce, Property & Alimony
RAMOS VS. SANCHEZ-PLATA (FAMILY)
Jan 12, 202626-01666 · 90886 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Appeal dismissed.The court applied the settled rule that appellate jurisdiction exists only where authorized by statute or court rule, citing Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels, 100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984). It analyzed two…
DAVIDSON VS. DAVIDSON
Sep 29, 2016132 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (2016) · 67698 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.Standard of review: Questions of statutory construction are reviewed de novo. I. Cox Constr. Co. v. CH2 Invs., LLC, 129 Nev. 139, 142, 296 P.3d 1202, 1203 (2013). Appellate jurisdiction: The Court first held that the…
HERRMANN VS. HERRMANN (CHILD CUSTODY)
Feb 8, 202424-04791 · 86246-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part.The court addressed jurisdiction, then reached the merits of three challenges. As to jurisdiction over the order setting a vexatious litigant hearing, the court held that no statute or court rule authorizes an appeal…
SNYDER VS. SNYDER C/W 82756/83029
Oct 20, 202222-32996 · 81887-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding (Docket No. 81887-COA); dismissing appeals (Docket No. 82756-COA and Docket No. 83029-COA).Docket No. 81887-COA (divorce decree). The court reviewed the subject matter jurisdiction challenge de novo. Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 667, 221 P.3d 699, 704 (2009). Raymond argued that neither party satisfied the…
YU VS. YU (DIVORCE)
Nov 22, 2017133 Nev. 737, 405 P.3d 639 (2017) · 70348 · Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal permitted to proceed; the vexatious litigant determination may be considered in this appeal. Appellant directed to file an opening brief within 30 days.Per Curiam. On jurisdictional prescreening of an appeal from a post-decree order, the court considered whether a post-judgment vexatious litigant determination - which is not independently appealable under Peck v.…
SASSLER VS. SASSLER
Jun 17, 202424-21011 · 87017-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed. ("ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.")The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's alimony and property rulings for abuse of discretion, noting that decisions in divorce proceedings will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence — "that…
GHIBAUDO VS. KELLOGG-GHIBAUDO
Apr 21, 202222-12648 · 82248-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed. ("ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.")Standard of review: The Court of Appeals reviews decisions in divorce proceedings, including spousal support awards, for an abuse of discretion, citing Williams v. Williams, 120 Nev. 559, 566, 97 P.3d 1124, 1129 (2004),…
GUERIN VS. GUERIN (DIVORCE)
Feb 26, 1998114 Nev. 127, 953 P.2d 716 (1998) · 27042, 28354, 29297 · Nevada Supreme Court
Judgment in Docket No. 27042 reversed and remanded with instructions to set aside the decree; petition in Docket No. 28354 granted to the extent the district court's April 8, 1996 order affected the Hill Family Trust; orders in Docket No. 29297 affirmed.The court consolidated three matters. In the direct appeal (Docket No. 27042), the court held the default divorce decree's property division must be set aside under NRCP 60(b) because the decree was void. NRCP 55(b)(2)…
GARCIA RODRIGUEZ VS. LEON-YANEZ
Apr 29, 202424-14789 · 85289-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.**Standard of review.** The court reviewed the distribution of community property, orders concerning omitted assets, child support, alimony, and attorney fees each for abuse of discretion. See Kogod v. Cioffi-Kogod, 135…
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.