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.
14 results for “NRCP 72(b)”
KATLEMAN VS. KATLEMAN (DIVORCE)
May 20, 195874 Nev. 141, 325 P.2d 420 (1958) · 4097 · Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal dismissed. ("The motion must be granted.")The court considered respondent husband's motion to dismiss the wife's appeal from an order denying her motion for allowances and alimony pendente lite under NRS 125.040, on the ground that the order was not appealable…
ENGEBRETSON VS. ENGEBRETSON (DIVORCE)
Feb 11, 195773 Nev. 19, 307 P.2d 115 (1957) · 4001 · Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal dismissed. ("The appeal is dismissed with costs to respondent.")The wife moved to dismiss the husband's appeal from a January 24, 1956 'Order for Preliminary Allowances' awarding $300 preliminary counsel fees and $100 per month for support pending the litigation, without prejudice…
ALLIS VS. ALLIS (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Dec 13, 196581 Nev. 653, 408 P.2d 916 (1965) · 4915 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed.Thompson, J. An award of counsel fees to a wife in a divorce action lies within the trial court's discretion, but that discretion is abused when the order patently rests on the husband's ability to pay rather than the…
GRENZ VS. GRENZ (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Sep 24, 196278 Nev. 394, 374 P.2d 891 (1962) · 4210 · Nevada Supreme Court
Remanded with directions and for further proceedings; costs to appellant. ("Remanded with directions and for further proceedings. Costs to appellant.")The court first dismissed the purported appeals from the original and amended findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are not appealable determinations under NRCP 72(b) (Musso v. Triplett, 78 Nev. 355, 372 P.2d…
SULLIVAN VS. SULLIVAN (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jun 6, 202424-19892 · 87424-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed ("ORDER the district court orders AFFIRMED.").Standard of review. The court reviews the exclusion of expert testimony for abuse of discretion, citing Hallmark v. Eldridge, 124 Nev. 492, 498, 189 P.3d 646, 650 (2008), and reviews child custody determinations…
DOBSON VS. DOBSON (DIVORCE)
May 13, 1992108 Nev. 346, 830 P.2d 1336 (1992) · 21718 · Nevada Supreme Court
Motion to dismiss the appeal denied (the order declaring the divorce decree void held appealable; appellant granted thirty days to file the opening brief).Although an order merely quashing service of process is generally not appealable (Orme v. District Court, 105 Nev. 712, 782 P.2d 1325 (1989); Jarstad v. National Farmers Union, 92 Nev. 380, 552 P.2d 49 (1976)), by…
SANTOS GARCIA VS. DORADO ROSALES (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jan 22, 202424-02317 · 85962-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Reversed and remanded.The Court of Appeals reviewed the denial of attorney fees and costs for abuse of discretion, citing Gunderson v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 130 Nev. 67, 80, 319 P.3d 606, 615 (2014), and noted that a district court abuses its…
OCASIO VS. WIRSZ (CHILD CUSTODY)
Oct 20, 202222-33067 · 84089-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Reversed and remanded.The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing before denying a motion to modify custody for abuse of discretion, citing Bautista v. Picone, 134 Nev. 334, 338, 419 P.3d…
KOGOD VS. CIOFFI-KOGOD C/W 71994
Apr 25, 2019135 Nev. 64, 439 P.3d 397 (2019) · 71994 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.Standard of review. The court reviews divorce-decree decisions, including alimony and community property dispositions, for abuse of discretion. Buchanan v. Buchanan, 90 Nev. 209, 215, 523 P.2d 1, 5 (1974); Wolff v.…
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.…
SOLINGER VS. SOLINGER (CHILD CUSTODY)
Apr 20, 202323-12320 · 84832-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.**Custody.** Child custody decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996), and will not be set aside if supported by substantial evidence, Ellis v.…
ROE VS. ROE (CHILD CUSTODY)
May 18, 202323-15702 · 84893-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated, and remanded. The court states: "we AFFIRM the district court's modification of custody, REVERSE as to the parenting time allocation and improper delegation of the district court's authority, VACATE the award of attorney fees and costs, and REMAND the case for reassignment to a different district court judge and proceedings consistent with this order."**Standard of review.** A district court's child custody order is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996). Factual findings are upheld if supported by…
ROE VS. ROE (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jul 27, 2023139 Nev. Adv. Op. 21, 535 P.3d 274 (Ct. App. 2023) · 84893-COA · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.**Standard of review.** Child custody orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996). Factual findings stand if supported by substantial evidence. Ellis v.…
ASKEW VS. ASKEW (CHILD CUSTODY)
Dec 13, 202323-40411 · 84315-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed. ("ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.")**Standard of review.** District courts have broad discretion in child custody cases, reviewed for abuse of discretion; factual findings will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence — "evidence that a…
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.