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.
11 results for “NRS 125.020”
SENJAB VS. ALHULAIBI (CHILD CUSTODY)
Oct 21, 2021137 Nev. Adv. Op. 64, 497 P.3d 618 (2021) · 81515 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded.The court reviewed both subject-matter jurisdiction and statutory interpretation de novo, citing Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 667, 221 P.3d 699, 704 (2009), and Young v. Nev. Gaming Control Bd., 136 Nev. 584, 586, 473…
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…
PATEL VS. PATEL (DIVORCE)
Jan 14, 198096 Nev. 51, 604 P.2d 816 (1980) · 10414 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed; respondent's motion for attorney's fees and costs denied.The Court (per curiam) affirmed a divorce judgment challenged on jurisdiction, child support, and proof of grounds. On jurisdiction, the wife contended the husband failed to satisfy the residency requirement of NRS…
WOODRUFF VS. WOODRUFF (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Jan 9, 197894 Nev. 1, 573 P.2d 206 (1978) · 8930 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed in part; remanded for further proceedings on the alimony issue.The court (Gunderson, J.) affirmed in part and remanded on the alimony issue. On jurisdiction, the residency requirement of NRS 125.020 presents a question of fact for the trial court, and the finding of respondent's…
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…
EDWARDS VS. SANTOYO (CHILD CUSTODY)
Aug 16, 202424-29284 · 88329-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed. ("we affirm the district court's decision to grant Santoyo's motion to dismiss.")The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo, citing Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 667, 221 P.3d 699, 704 (2009). It applied the deferential standard to…
SCHRICKER VS. SCHRICKER
May 16, 202525-22003 · 87984-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.The Court of Appeals addressed a series of assignments of error under differing standards of review. **Jurisdiction.** Reviewing subject matter jurisdiction de novo (Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 667, 221 P.3d 699, 704…
THURSTON VS. THURSTON (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Jul 13, 197187 Nev. 365, 487 P.2d 342 (1971) · 6291 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.The wife appealed from a decree granting the husband a divorce and dividing the parties' property after a 34-year marriage; she had opposed the divorce and counterclaimed only for separate maintenance. Jurisdiction /…
Bradford v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.
Aug 29, 2013129 Nev. 584, 308 P.3d 122 (2013) · 61129 · Nevada Supreme Court
Petition denied.The court's consideration of extraordinary writ relief is discretionary. Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 198, 179 P.3d 556, 559 (2008). Writ relief is available only "when there is…
BARRUS VS. MCBRIDE
Jul 10, 202323-21954 · 85320-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Reversed and remanded.The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's dismissal for lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction de novo, citing Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 667, 221 P.3d 699, 704 (2009), and Viega GMBH v. Eighth…
MOORE VS. MOORE (DIVORCE)
Apr 1, 195975 Nev. 189, 336 P.2d 1073 (1959) · 4126 · Nevada Supreme Court
Modified and, as modified, affirmed. The court struck the $7,000 attorney-fee award to the respondent; in all other respects the judgment (vacating the order that had set aside the divorce decree) was affirmed.By the Court, Badt, J. On the appeal of Paul and Mary Moore from a summary judgment for Benda (Paul's second wife) that set aside a prior order vacating the Paul-Mary divorce decree and restored the decree, the court…
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.