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.
14 results for “NRS 125A.350”
MCGUINNESS VS. MCGUINNESS (CHILD CUSTODY)
Dec 30, 1998114 Nev. 1431, 970 P.2d 1074 (1998) · 30836 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded for reevaluation of the custody decision and the motion to relocate under the proper standard.The court held that NRS 125A.350 applies to a parent who shares joint custody and seeks to move out of state, and further held it applies where only temporary custody has been established. In determining custody, the…
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…
MONAHAN VS. HOGAN (CHILD CUSTODY)
Feb 24, 2022138 Nev. Adv. Op. 7, 507 P.3d 588 (Ct. App. 2022) · 82031-COA · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.The Court of Appeals construes NRS 125C.007(1)(b) - the "best interests of the child" provision in Nevada's three-part threshold relocation test - and resolves two issues: (1) whether and how the NRS 125C.0035(4)…
COOK VS. COOK (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jun 27, 1995111 Nev. 822, 898 P.2d 702 (1995) · 26360 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the motion to relocate and to establish a liberal visitation schedule and adjusted child support.Per Curiam. The court reversed the denial of a custodial parent's motion to relocate with the child to Louisiana under NRS 125A.350 and remanded with instructions to grant it. Applying Schwartz v. Schwartz, 107 Nev.…
BLAICH VS. BLAICH (CHILD CUSTODY)
Dec 31, 1998114 Nev. 1446, 971 P.2d 822 (1998) · 30434 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded for reevaluation of the relocation and custody motions under the proper standard.The court conducts de novo review of the district court's conclusions of law. SIIS v. United Exposition Services Co., 109 Nev. 28, 30, 846 P.2d 294, 295 (1993). It first held that Christine's reply memorandum was timely…
TRENT VS. TRENT (CHILD CUSTODY)
Mar 2, 1995111 Nev. 309, 890 P.2d 1309 (1995) · 24741 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the petition for removal.The court applied Schwartz v. Schwartz, 107 Nev. 378, 812 P.2d 1268 (1991), its only prior decision on NRS 125A.350. Schwartz requires a threshold showing that an actual advantage will be realized by both the child and…
Potter v. Potter
Sep 22, 2005121 Nev. 613, 119 P.3d 1246 (2005) · 42488 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded with instructions.The en banc court, per Becker, C.J., addressed whether NRS 125C.200 applies to parties who share joint physical custody. The court reviewed the question de novo, noting that "Statutory interpretation is a question of…
GANDEE VS. GANDEE (CHILD CUSTODY)
May 25, 1995111 Nev. 754, 895 P.2d 1285 (1995) · 26209, 26241 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded in both consolidated cases, with instructions to grant the relocation motions and fix reasonable, alternative visitation schedules.Per Curiam (two cases consolidated for disposition). The court again construed NRS 125A.350 and reversed the denial of relocation in both cases. Governing framework. Following Trent v. Trent, 111 Nev. 309, 890 P.2d 1309…
SCHWARTZ VS. SCHWARTZ (CHILD RELOCATION)
Jun 6, 1991107 Nev. 378, 812 P.2d 1268 (1991) · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.Per Curiam. In a case of first impression interpreting NRS 125A.350 (Nevada's anti-removal statute), the Court held that the best interest of the child is the paramount concern in deciding whether a custodial parent may…
JOHNSON VS. BENNETT (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jun 26, 2025141 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (Ct. App. 2025) · 89185-COA · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded.Standard of review. The court reviews custody determinations for abuse of discretion, which occurs when the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence or is clearly erroneous. Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149,…
DAVIS VS. DAVIS (CHILD CUSTODY)
Dec 31, 1998114 Nev. 1461, 970 P.2d 1084 (1998) · 31003 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.Custody decisions rest within the district court's sound discretion and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Culbertson v. Culbertson, 91 Nev. 230, 233, 533 P.2d 768, 769 (1975). Under NRS 125A.350…
GEPFORD VS. GEPFORD (CHILD CUSTODY)
Nov 30, 2000116 Nev. 1033, 13 P.3d 47 (2000) · 34449 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded for a new custody hearing with specific findings under the second prong of Murphy.The court reversed a change of primary physical custody, holding substantial evidence did not support the finding that the children's welfare would be substantially enhanced by the change. A change of primary custody…
HALBROOK VS. HALBROOK (CHILD CUSTODY)
Dec 31, 1998114 Nev. 1455, 971 P.2d 1262 (1998) · 30880, 31441 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded for reevaluation of the relocation motion; attorney's fees award reversed.Applying Schwartz v. Schwartz, 107 Nev. 378, 382-83, 812 P.2d 1268, 1270-71 (1991), and its progeny, the court held the district court erred in finding the moving parent lacked a sensible, good-faith reason to relocate.…
JONES VS. JONES (CHILD CUSTODY)
Nov 30, 1994110 Nev. 1253, 885 P.2d 563 (1994) · 24876 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the petition for removal.Applying Schwartz v. Schwartz, 107 Nev. 378, 812 P.2d 1268 (1991), the court reaffirmed that NRS 125A.350's purpose is to preserve the noncustodial parent's relationship, requiring a balance of the custodial parent's…
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.