F-Law
← Case library

RAPPA VS. LORICO (FAMILY)

89757 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA) · March 6, 2025

Disposition:Appeal dismissed.Other Family Law

Posture Germana Rappa appealed in a matter from the district court's family division (Hon. Bill Henderson, District Judge). Before the Nevada Supreme Court resolved the appeal on its merits, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss. The court dismissed the appeal pursuant to that stipulation.

Key holdings

- Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the appeal is dismissed under NRAP 42. - Per the stipulation, the parties shall bear their own attorney fees and costs.

Practitioner summary

This is a clerk's order dismissing an appeal pursuant to a stipulation of the parties under NRAP 42. The court did not reach the merits and announced no substantive rule of law. The order recites that, per the stipulation, the parties shall bear their own attorney fees and costs. There is no standard of review, doctrinal framework, or application to analyze, because the disposition rests solely on the parties' stipulated dismissal rather than on any adjudication. The matter originated in the district court's family division before Hon. Bill Henderson.

In plain language

This is a very short procedural order, not a decision on the merits of any dispute. Germana Rappa had appealed a matter to the Nevada Supreme Court against Aurelio Lorico. The case came out of the family division of the district court. Before the Supreme Court reached any decision about who was right, the two sides reached an agreement to end the appeal. They filed what is called a stipulation - a formal, mutual agreement between the parties submitted to the court. The court accepted that agreement and dismissed the appeal. As part of their agreement, each side agreed to pay its own attorney fees and costs, rather than one side reimbursing the other. The court entered its order to that effect. The opinion does not describe the underlying facts of the family-law dispute or address any legal questions.

This summary is independently verified against the source opinion. It is an informational research aid, not legal advice, and no substitute for reading the decision.