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.
10 results for “NRCP 60(c)” in Divorce, Property & Alimony
TAVARES VS. TAVARES
Mar 4, 202626-10136 · 88218-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed. ("ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.")The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's denial of an NRCP 60 motion to set aside for abuse of discretion, citing Cook v. Cook, 112 Nev. 179, 181-82, 912 P.2d 264, 265 (1996). It first established the…
SMITH VS. SMITH (DIVORCE)
Oct 26, 196682 Nev. 384, 419 P.2d 295 (1966) · 5093 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.Thompson, J. The issue was whether the premature entry of a default divorce decree renders it void or merely voidable. The court held the decree voidable. Personal jurisdiction attached when the defendant was served…
BYRD VS. BYRD
Sep 30, 2021137 Nev. Adv. Op. 60, 501 P.3d 458 (Ct. App. 2021) · 80548-COA · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded.Standard of review. The denial or grant of a motion under NRCP 60(b) is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with no deference to legal error. Cook v. Cook, 112 Nev. 179, 181-82, 912 P.2d 264, 265 (1996); AA Primo…
CARNEY VS. MORURI
Mar 29, 202424-11254 · 85614-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed. ("ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.")The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's order setting aside a divorce decree and adjudicating an omitted asset for abuse of discretion, reviewing factual findings deferentially (not to be set aside unless…
LAM VS. LAM (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Dec 24, 197086 Nev. 908, 478 P.2d 146 (1970) · 6193 · Nevada Supreme Court
The order relating to child support is affirmed; the portion directing the disposition of property interests is reversed and dismissed.The controlling question was whether the husband's appearance to address child custody and support, made almost two years after the default decree (beyond NRCP 60(b) and (c)'s six-month period), also supported a…
MANVILLE VS. MANVILLE (DIVORCE)
Dec 10, 196379 Nev. 487, 387 P.2d 661 (1963) · 4637 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed. ("Affirmed.")The court addressed an independent action under NRCP 60(b) to set aside a 1955 divorce decree for fraud. The court distinguished intrinsic from extrinsic fraud. The alleged failure to establish bona fide residence was…
MAHONEY, JR. VS. MAHONEY C/W 82413
Jul 21, 202222-22958 · 82412-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed. ("ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.")Standard of review. Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence: "this court will not disturb a district court's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence." Keife v. Logan, 119 Nev. 372,…
CICERCHIA VS. CICERCHIA (DIVORCE)
Apr 4, 196177 Nev. 158, 360 P.2d 839 (1961) · 4342 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed. ("Affirmed.")On the husband's appeal from an order setting aside a default and divorce decree, the court reviewed relief under NRCP 60(b) and NRCP 55(c). It held such relief is addressed largely to the sound discretion of the trial…
ROSIAK VS. ROSIAK C/W 86632
Feb 22, 202424-06443 · 85464-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded ("ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.").**Standard of review.** The court reviews "decisions regarding child support for an abuse of discretion," Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev. 1, 7, 501 P.3d 980, 985 (2022), abrogated in part on other grounds by Killebrew v.…
GARCIA RODRIGUEZ VS. LEON-YANEZ
Apr 29, 202424-14789 · 85289-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.**Standard of review.** The court reviewed the distribution of community property, orders concerning omitted assets, child support, alimony, and attorney fees each for abuse of discretion. See Kogod v. Cioffi-Kogod, 135…
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.