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 “NRS 125.480(4)(c), (e)”
Druckman v. Ruscitti
Jun 26, 2014130 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (2014) · 60598 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.The court, per Douglas, J., en banc, addressed the custodial rights of unmarried parents where paternity has been established by voluntary acknowledgment under NRS 126.053 but no judicial custody order exists. A…
NANCE VS. FERRARO (CHILD CUSTODY)
Apr 5, 2018134 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (Ct. App. 2018) · 72454-COA · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded.Standard of review: Evidentiary rulings on motions in limine and child-custody determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion. State ex rel. Dep't of Highways v. Nev. Aggregates & Asphalt Co., 92 Nev. 370, 376, 551…
NGUYEN VS. BOYNES (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jun 22, 2017133 Nev. Adv. Op. 32 (2017) · 69166 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.Standard of review. The Court reviewed application of the equitable adoption doctrine de novo as a question of law, citing Rennels v. Rennels, 127 Nev. 564, 569, 257 P.3d 396, 399 (2011). It reviewed the parentage…
Rivero v. Rivero
Oct 30, 2008125 Nev. 410, 216 P.3d 213 (2009) · 46915 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded in part (custody determination and child support); affirmed in part (the district court's orders regarding the recusal, disqualification, and attorney fees).Standards of review: custody decisions, including visitation schedules, are reviewed for abuse of discretion (Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996)); factual findings must be supported by…
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.