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 128.110” in Child Welfare
IN RE: MATTER OF E.R. C/W 73198
May 3, 201818-16764 · 73198 · Nevada Supreme Court
Petitions granted.Standard of review: The court reviewed the consolidated original mandamus petitions under NRS 34.160, noting that mandamus is the appropriate vehicle to challenge an NRS Chapter 432B placement order because such orders…
DESTIN VS. DIST. CT. (HANDWERKER-LAMASTER) (CHILD CUSTODY)
Aug 28, 202525-37656 · 89114 · Nevada Supreme Court
Petition denied.Standard of review. Mandamus may issue under NRS 34.160 to compel performance of an act the law requires, and under Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4. Relief is available only where the district court "manifestly abused [its]…
IN RE: MATTER OF E.R. C/W 73198
May 3, 201818-16764 · 73272 · Nevada Supreme Court
Petitions granted.Standard of review: A writ of mandamus may issue "to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion." Clark Cty. Dist. Att'y v. Eighth Judicial…
MULKERN VS. DIST. CT. (CLARK CTY. DEP'T OF FAMILY SERV.'S)
Oct 18, 201818-40945 · 76399 · Nevada Supreme Court
Petition granted in part.Standard of review and writ standards. The court reiterated that mandamus is available to compel an act required by law or to control arbitrary or capricious exercises of discretion, citing Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v.…
P. VS. DIST. CT. (CLARK CTY. DEP'T OF FAMILY SERVS.)
Nov 18, 202222-36397 · 85002 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Petition denied.The court addressed an original writ petition challenging a district court placement order. Writ relief is extraordinary and discretionary, and the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that intervention is…
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.