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 128.106(1)(d)” in Termination of Parental Rights
IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO S.A.T. (FAMILY)
Oct 2, 2025141 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (2025) · 89258 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.Standard of review: questions of law are reviewed de novo; the district court's factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. In re Parental Rts. as to A.L., 130 Nev. 914, 918, 337 P.3d 758, 761 (2014). The…
WASHOE COUNTY DSS VS. KORY L.G. (TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS)
Feb 28, 2013129 Nev. 125, 295 P.3d 589 (2013) · 60071 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.By the Court, Douglas, J. (Pickering, C.J., and Gibbons, Hardesty, Parraguirre, Cherry, and Saitta, JJ., concurring; en banc). The court addressed whether a nonoffending parent - whose child was placed in state custody…
IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO T.F.F. (FAMILY)
Jun 18, 202525-26942 · 89626 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed.Standard of review: questions of law are reviewed de novo; the district court's factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. In re Parental Rts. as to A.L., 130 Nev. 914, 918, 337 P.3d 758, 761 (2014).…
IN RE: WESTFALL
Aug 14, 202525-35742 · 88416 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed.The court applied the two-prong termination framework of NRS 128.105(1) and In re Termination of Parental Rts. as to N.J., 116 Nev. 790, 800-01, 8 P.3d 126, 132-33 (2000), requiring clear and convincing evidence of (1)…
IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.B.J.
May 14, 202424-16818 · 86116 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed.Standard of review: Questions of law are reviewed de novo, and the district court's factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence - "that which 'a reasonable person may accept as adequate' to support a…
IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO S.V.
Aug 11, 202222-25200 · 83008 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed.The court applied the two-part termination framework under NRS 128.105(1) and In re Termination of Parental Rights as to N.J., 116 Nev. 790, 800-01, 8 P.3d 126, 132-33 (2000), requiring clear and convincing evidence of…
IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO N.D.L. (FAMILY)
May 15, 202525-21908 · 89361 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed.The court applied the familiar two-prong termination framework under NRS 128.105(1) and In re Termination of Parental Rts. as to N.J., 116 Nev. 790, 800-01, 8 P.3d 126, 132-33 (2000): clear and convincing evidence of…
MATTER OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO BOW (TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS)
Jan 4, 1997113 Nev. 141; 930 P.2d 1128 · 27315 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.Affirming termination, the court applied the Champagne framework requiring clear and convincing evidence of both jurisdictional grounds (a specific fault or condition of the parent) and dispositional grounds (the…
IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO R.B.J. (FAMILY)
Sep 10, 202525-39690 · 89225 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed.The court reviewed the constitutional challenge to NRS 128.109 de novo, citing Hernandez v. Bennett-Haron, 128 Nev. 580, 586, 287 P.3d 305, 310 (2012), and applied the presumption of validity from Flamingo Paradise…
IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO M.M.L., JR.
May 11, 2017133 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (2017) · 69210 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.Standard of review: The grant or denial of a continuance lies within the district court's discretion and will not be reversed "except for the most potent reasons." S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 94 Nev. 241, 243,…
In Re Nj
Dec 24, 2009125 Nev. 835, 221 P.3d 1255 (2009) · 51125 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.The court resolved two questions of first impression concerning the interplay between Nevada parental-termination law and the ICWA, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-63 (2006): (1) which burden of proof governs when both state and…
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.