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.
11 results for “NRS 128.106(4)” in Termination of Parental Rights
IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO WEINPER (TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS)
May 30, 1996112 Nev. 710, 918 P.2d 325 (1996) · 27047 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed. The order terminating parental rights was affirmed.By the Court, Rose, J. (Steffen, C.J., Young and Shearing, JJ., concurring). The court affirmed an order terminating parental rights, rejecting due-process, jurisdictional, and dispositional challenges. Due process.…
WASHOE COUNTY DSS VS. KORY L.G. (TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS)
Feb 28, 2013129 Nev. 125, 295 P.3d 589 (2013) · 60071 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.By the Court, Douglas, J. (Pickering, C.J., and Gibbons, Hardesty, Parraguirre, Cherry, and Saitta, JJ., concurring; en banc). The court addressed whether a nonoffending parent - whose child was placed in state custody…
IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO A.J.B.
Oct 11, 202424-38299 · 85539 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed.Standard of review: Questions of law are reviewed de novo; the district court's factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence — evidence "a reasonable person may accept as adequate" to support a conclusion. In…
IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO: K.C. (FAMILY)
Feb 12, 202626-07184 · 90171 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed.Standard of review: questions of law are reviewed de novo; factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. In re Parental Rts. as to A.L., 130 Nev. 914, 918, 337 P.3d 758, 761 (2014). Substantial evidence is…
In Re Nj
Dec 24, 2009125 Nev. 835, 221 P.3d 1255 (2009) · 51125 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.The court resolved two questions of first impression concerning the interplay between Nevada parental-termination law and the ICWA, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-63 (2006): (1) which burden of proof governs when both state and…
IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO T.F.F. (FAMILY)
Jun 18, 202525-26942 · 89626 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed.Standard of review: questions of law are reviewed de novo; the district court's factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. In re Parental Rts. as to A.L., 130 Nev. 914, 918, 337 P.3d 758, 761 (2014).…
IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO N.D.L. (FAMILY)
May 15, 202525-21908 · 89361 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed.The court applied the familiar two-prong termination framework under NRS 128.105(1) and In re Termination of Parental Rts. as to N.J., 116 Nev. 790, 800-01, 8 P.3d 126, 132-33 (2000): clear and convincing evidence of…
IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO M.M.L., JR.
May 11, 2017133 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (2017) · 69210 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.Standard of review: The grant or denial of a continuance lies within the district court's discretion and will not be reversed "except for the most potent reasons." S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 94 Nev. 241, 243,…
IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO K.M.W.
Mar 9, 202323-07329 · 83038 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed.The court reviewed the district court's termination order under the established two-part standard: clear and convincing evidence of (1) at least one ground of parental fault and (2) that termination serves the child's…
IN THE MATTER OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO DECK (TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS)
Jan 4, 1997113 Nev. 124; 930 P.2d 760 · 27260 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.Affirming termination of both parents' rights, the court applied the two-part Champagne framework requiring clear and convincing evidence of jurisdictional grounds (a specific fault or condition of the parent) and…
IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO S.V.
Aug 11, 202222-25200 · 83008 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed.The court applied the two-part termination framework under NRS 128.105(1) and In re Termination of Parental Rights as to N.J., 116 Nev. 790, 800-01, 8 P.3d 126, 132-33 (2000), requiring clear and convincing evidence of…
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.