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.
3 results for “NRS 125.150(3)” in Retirement Division
KILGORE VS. KILGORE
Oct 3, 2019135 Nev. Adv. Op. 47, 449 P.3d 843 (2019) · 73977 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.Standard of review. The court reviews the district court's distribution of community property, including PERS benefits and vacation/sick pay, for abuse of discretion. Wolff v. Wolff, 112 Nev. 1355, 1359, 929 P.2d 916,…
CARRELL VS. CARRELL (RETIREMENT DIVISION)
Sep 1, 1992108 Nev. 670, 836 P.2d 1243 (1992) · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed as to the characterization of the wife's pension award and the award of attorney's fees, and remanded with instructions to recharacterize the wife's portion of the pension funds as community property and to make findings supporting any fee award; affirmed in all other respects.Per Curiam. Retirement benefits earned during marriage are community property, Walsh v. Walsh, 103 Nev. 287, 738 P.2d 117 (1987). As community property, they carry rights that do not attach to spousal support - most…
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.…
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.