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.
13 results for “NRS 125.040(2)”
ROBERSON VS. ROBERSON C/W 87925
Oct 9, 202525-44182 · 87774-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed. ("ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.")**Standard of review.** The court reviews awards of attorney fees for abuse of discretion. Chowdhry v. NLVH, Inc., 109 Nev. 478, 485, 851 P.2d 459, 464 (1993). A district court abuses its discretion when its findings…
MARTIN VS. MARTIN C/W 82517
Dec 1, 2022138 Nev. Adv. Op. 78, 520 P.3d 813 (2022) · 82517 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.The court reviewed de novo the questions of law presented: interpretation of caselaw, statutory construction, and federal preemption. See Liu v. Christopher Homes, LLC, 130 Nev. 147, 151, 321 P.3d 875, 877 (2014); Wyeth…
MARTIN VS. MARTIN C/W 82517
Dec 1, 2022138 Nev. Adv. Op. 78, 520 P.3d 813 (2022) · 81810 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.The court reviewed questions of law - interpretation of caselaw, statutory construction, federal preemption, and application of res judicata - de novo, citing Liu v. Christopher Homes, LLC, 130 Nev. 147, 321 P.3d 875…
GOLDSTEIN VS. GOLDSTEIN
Dec 2, 202525-52569 · 88541-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.The Court of Appeals reviewed the attorney fee award for abuse of discretion. Logan v. Abe, 131 Nev. 260, 266, 350 P.3d 1139, 1143 (2015). An abuse of discretion "can occur when the district court bases its decision on…
LEEMING VS. LEEMING (CHILD SUPPORT)
Nov 15, 197187 Nev. 530, 490 P.2d 342 (1971) · 6491 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed; appellant ordered to pay respondent an additional $1,000 for counsel's services on appeal.The court affirmed the district court's refusal to apply NRCP 68 to post-judgment proceedings in a divorce matter. Following the divorce, the respondent moved under NRS 125.140(2) to increase child support and, on…
DAY VS. DAY (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Sep 9, 196682 Nev. 317, 417 P.2d 914 (1966) · 5048 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part. The court affirmed the judgment on the husband's appeal, and on the wife's cross-appeal reversed the limitation of interest and remanded for calculation and award of interest on the arrearages accruing before January 1, 1960.Collins, J. In a proceeding under NRS 125.180 to reduce accrued arrearages under a 1949 divorce decree to judgment (the underlying agreement having been held merged in the decree, Day v. Day, 80 Nev. 386, 395 P.2d 321…
FOX VS. FOX (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Apr 21, 196581 Nev. 186, 401 P.2d 53 (1965) · 4812 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded for a limited new trial on the value of the community business (goodwill), taking the $123,706.37 into account as 1962 restaurant receipts; affirmed in all other respects.Badt, J. In valuing a community business on divorce, the husband, as statutory manager of the community property (NRS 123.230), bears the burden of explaining and proving the source of funds deposited in the community…
DOUGLAS VS. DOUGLAS
Oct 11, 202424-38333 · 86888-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed. ("ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.")The Court of Appeals reviewed the denial of attorney fees in a divorce proceeding for abuse of discretion, citing Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622, 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005). It reiterated that attorney fees and…
BRADDOCK VS. BRADDOCK (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Nov 21, 197591 Nev. 735, 542 P.2d 1060 (1975) · 7740, 7875 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed. ("The judgment and orders of the lower court are affirmed.")In consolidated appeals the court addressed the validity of an Ohio antenuptial agreement and the resulting property, support, and fee awards. Because the agreement was executed and to be performed in Ohio, Ohio law…
THORNE VS. THORNE (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Jun 18, 195874 Nev. 211, 326 P.2d 729 (1958) · 4050 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded with instructions to strike the challenged provisions. ("Reversed and remanded with instructions that paragraphs 2(a), 2(b) and 2(f) be stricken from the judgment and decree...")The husband appealed from decree provisions ordering him to pay the wife $20,000 in installments, to convey his five-eighths interest in New York real property, and to pay $2,500 in counsel fees, where the court had…
KORBEL VS. KORBEL (DIVORCE)
Mar 11, 1985101 Nev. 140, 696 P.2d 993 (1985) · 15491 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded with instructions. The court reversed the $2,500 attorney's fee award and remanded with instruction to modify the award in accordance with the opinion (i.e., to exclude the $2,000 attributable to the prior, dismissed appeal).Per Curiam (Springer, C.J., Mowbray, Steffen, Gunderson, JJ., and Zenoff, Sr. J., concurring). The husband appealed only the portion of a post-decree order awarding the wife $2,500 in attorney's fees, $2,000 of which…
ENGEBRETSON VS. ENGEBRETSON (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Apr 28, 195975 Nev. 237, 338 P.2d 75 (1959) · 4142 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed. The court held that the award of accumulated pendente lite alimony was a proper exercise of the trial court's discretion.By the Court, McNamee, J. On the husband's appeal from the portion of a divorce judgment awarding $2,150 in accumulated pendente lite alimony under a prior $100-per-month order, the court affirmed. (An earlier appeal…
LEVINSON VS. LEVINSON (DIVORCE)
May 22, 195874 Nev. 160, 325 P.2d 771 (1958) · 4059 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed. ("Affirmed.")This appeal challenged the portion of a divorce decree making a final allowance of pendente lite counsel fees, the sole assignment being that the court improperly considered services rendered before the motion for…
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.