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.
4 results for “NRCP 60(b)(1)” in Other Family Law
NORMAN VS. STAMPER (FAMILY)
Jun 26, 202525-28168 · 88904-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed. ("ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.")The Court of Appeals reviewed the denial of a NRCP 60(b)(3) motion for abuse of discretion, citing Vargas v. J Morales Inc., 138 Nev. 384, 387, 510 P.3d 777, 780 (2022) ("The district court has wide discretion to grant…
LARSON VS TRAUTMAN (FAMILY)
Sep 25, 202525-41922 · 89636-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed. ("ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE")The Court of Appeals reviewed the denial of Larson's NRCP 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion, stating it will uphold the district court's decision to grant or deny an NRCP 60(b) motion if sufficient evidence in the…
Khalifah v. Hollings (Child Custody)
Aug 19, 202692810 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Appeal dismissed.The court addressed a threshold jurisdictional question sua sponte upon reviewing the notice of appeal and the documents before it. The appeal arose from a district court order denying motions to reconsider and vacate…
MINHAS VS. GILL (FAMILY)
Jun 2, 202626-24890 · 89267-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Reversed and remanded. ("ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.")**Standard of review.** The court reviews an order denying a motion to set aside a judgment for abuse of discretion, citing *Rodriguez v. Fiesta Palms, LLC*, 134 Nev. 654, 656, 428 P.3d 255, 257 (2018). The court also…
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.