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 125B.080” in Divorce, Property & Alimony
MILLER VS. MILLER
Mar 15, 201818-10186 · 69353 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded with instructions.Standard of review: Statutory construction is reviewed de novo. City of Reno v. Reno Gazette-Journal, 119 Nev. 55, 58, 63 P.3d 1147, 1148 (2003). A district court's child support determination is reviewed for abuse of…
Fernandez v. Fernandez
Feb 4, 201051423 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded.The question presented was "whether parents can, by stipulation, eliminate or abridge a trial court's statutory authority to review and modify a child support order." The court answered no, holding that a stipulated…
NEYMAN VS. NEYMAN
Aug 21, 202525-36828 · 86780-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.**Alimony modification jurisdiction (Siragusa).** The court reviewed questions of law, including interpretation of caselaw, de novo (Martin v. Martin), but treated whether a party is in arrears as a question of fact…
Rivero v. Rivero
Oct 30, 200846915 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded in part (custody determination and child support); affirmed in part (the district court's orders regarding the recusal, disqualification, and attorney fees).Standards of review: custody decisions, including visitation schedules, are reviewed for abuse of discretion (Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996)); factual findings must be supported by…
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.…
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.