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 125C.0035(4)(i)” in Paternity
MARTINEZ VS. AVILA, JR. (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jun 30, 202222-20738 · 83023 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.**Standard of review.** The court applies deferential review to the district court's factual findings, setting them aside only if clearly erroneous or unsupported by substantial evidence, while reviewing legal questions…
NGUYEN VS. BOYNES (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jun 22, 201717-20699 · 69166 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.Standard of review. The Court reviewed application of the equitable adoption doctrine de novo as a question of law, citing Rennels v. Rennels, 127 Nev. 564, 569, 257 P.3d 396, 399 (2011). It reviewed the parentage…
CLELAND VS. CLELAND (CHILD CUSTODY)
Mar 19, 202424-09697 · 86558-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed.The Court of Appeals reviewed the child custody decision for an abuse of discretion, Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 241 (2007), affirming factual findings supported by substantial evidence, id. at…
COLT VS. PLUMMER (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jan 24, 202222-02423 · 82662-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed. ("ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.")The Court of Appeals reviewed a child custody decision for abuse of discretion, affirming district court determinations if supported by substantial evidence — evidence a reasonable person may accept as adequate to…
LORENZO VS. GENDEBIEN (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jun 18, 2026142 · 90082-COA · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded.**Standard of review.** The court reviewed the NRCP 12(b)(5) dismissal de novo, applying the "rigorous standard of review" from Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of North Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 227-28, 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008),…
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.