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.
5 results for “NRS 125.510(2)” in Custody & Relocation
DAVIS VS. EWALEFO (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jul 2, 201515-20176 · 63731 · Nevada Supreme Court
Petition for reconsideration granted; affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.Standard of review: The district court has "broad discretionary power" in determining child custody, including visitation, Hayes v. Gallacher, 115 Nev. 1, 4, 972 P.2d 1138, 1140 (1999); Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev.…
BLUESTEIN VS. BLUESTEIN (CHILD CUSTODY)
Mar 26, 201515-09140 · 62308 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded.Standard of review: Custody decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996). Purely legal questions are reviewed de novo. Rennels v. Rennels, 127 Nev.…
Potter v. Potter
Sep 22, 200542488 · 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…
HARRISON VS. HARRISON (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jul 28, 201616-23434 · 66157 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.The court reviewed the district court's denial of modification under an abuse of discretion standard. See Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 241 (2007). The opinion situates the analysis at the…
MICONE VS. MICONE (CHILD CUSTODY)
Mar 3, 201616-06873 · 67934 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.Standard of review: Child custody determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996). Jurisdiction over non-party custodians. The Court extended its…
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.