Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 30 of 133

Full-Text Articles in Law

Kogod V. Cioffi-Kogod, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (Apr. 25, 2019) (En Banc), Dallas Anselmo Sep 2019

Kogod V. Cioffi-Kogod, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (Apr. 25, 2019) (En Banc), Dallas Anselmo

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court articulated several decisions regarding the disposition of assets after a divorce. First, in determining an alimony award, a district court should consider the need of the receiving party in light of other income-earning property received. Second, extramarital spending can justify unequal disposition of community property; however, unequal disposition cannot be based on overconsumption of funds unless a specific showing is made to prove that consumption is excessive. Third, calculations of community property disposition should continue until the written decree is issued. Finally, a violation of an ambiguous injunction cannot result in sanctions.


Yesennia Esmeralda Amaya V Milton Orlando Guerrero Rivera, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (July 3, 2019), Salma Granich Sep 2019

Yesennia Esmeralda Amaya V Milton Orlando Guerrero Rivera, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (July 3, 2019), Salma Granich

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that under NRS 3.2203 (1) an order determining physical custody of a child satisfied the dependency or custody prong for Special Immigrant Juvenile predicate findings; and (2) in order to determine predicate findings, the reunification prong is satisfied where the juvenile cannot reunify with at least one parent.


Mulkern V. Eight Jud. Dist. Ct., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 82 (Oct. 18, 2018), Adrianna Guida Oct 2018

Mulkern V. Eight Jud. Dist. Ct., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 82 (Oct. 18, 2018), Adrianna Guida

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined the presumption under NRS § 432B.550(5)(a), that a child’s best interest is to be placed together with the siblings of the child, also applies to adopted children. Further, the Court held adoption does not sever a biological sibling relationship for purposes of NRS § 432B.550(5)(a).


From Equitable To Equal, And Then More Equal: How Nevada Divorce Law Can Help Domestic Violence Survivors, David Ernesto Chavez Sep 2018

From Equitable To Equal, And Then More Equal: How Nevada Divorce Law Can Help Domestic Violence Survivors, David Ernesto Chavez

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.


In Re Parental Rights As To S.L., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 59 (Aug. 2, 2018), Maliq Kendricks Aug 2018

In Re Parental Rights As To S.L., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 59 (Aug. 2, 2018), Maliq Kendricks

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that termination of parental rights is valid when parents fail to take necessary remedial action for reunification with their children and the termination is in the best interest of the children pursuant to NRS 128.105(1)(a).


In Re: Matter Of E.R. C/W 73198, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (May 3, 2018), Matthew J. Mckissick May 2018

In Re: Matter Of E.R. C/W 73198, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (May 3, 2018), Matthew J. Mckissick

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that once parental rights have been terminated, NRS 128.110(2) is the appropriate standard for applying the familial placement preference—not NRS 432B.550(5).


Miller V. Miller, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (Mar. 15, 2018), Anna Sichting Mar 2018

Miller V. Miller, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (Mar. 15, 2018), Anna Sichting

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

When the parents share joint physical custody of one minor child but one of the parents has primary physical custody of the other minor child, the district court must use additional steps in order to properly utilize the statutory child support formula. Further, the courts must make specific findings of fact if they deviate from the standard statutory formula.


Families Across Borders: When Immigration And Family Law Collide-Minors Crossing Borders, Stewart Chang Jan 2018

Families Across Borders: When Immigration And Family Law Collide-Minors Crossing Borders, Stewart Chang

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.


Arcella V. Arcella, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 104 (Dec. 26, 2017), Shannon Zahm Dec 2017

Arcella V. Arcella, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 104 (Dec. 26, 2017), Shannon Zahm

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that district court’s focus—in a child custody case regarding educational placement—must remain on the child’s best interest and not on the religious objections made by a parent. Specifically, the Court found that the district court abused its discretion by (1) treating one parent’s religious objection as dispositive; (2) failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing; and (3) failing to support its order with specific, factual findings.


Abid V. Abid, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 94 (Dec. 7, 2017) (En Banc), Carmen Gilbert Dec 2017

Abid V. Abid, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 94 (Dec. 7, 2017) (En Banc), Carmen Gilbert

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that the district court properly exercised its discretion in allowing illegally recorded conversations to be used by a court appointed child psychologist to evaluate a child’s welfare in a custody case.


In Re Parental Rights As To T.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 97 (Dec. 7, 2017), Steven Kish Dec 2017

In Re Parental Rights As To T.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 97 (Dec. 7, 2017), Steven Kish

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that parents who have terminated their parental rights do not have standing to challenge a district court’s placement of their child.


Yu V. Yu, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 90 (Nov. 22, 2017), Samantha Scofield Nov 2017

Yu V. Yu, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 90 (Nov. 22, 2017), Samantha Scofield

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Though vexatious litigant determinations are not independently appealable, they may be considered on appeal when included in an otherwise appealable order.


In Re Parental Rights As To A.D.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Oct. 5, 2017), Alexis Wendl Oct 2017

In Re Parental Rights As To A.D.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Oct. 5, 2017), Alexis Wendl

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court held that (1) requiring a parent to admit guilt to a criminal act in order to maintain his or her parental rights violates that parent’s Fifth Amendment rights; and (2) substantial evidence must demonstrate that terminating parental rights is in the best interest of the children when a parent overcomes the presumptions in NRS 128.109(1)-(2).


Gordon V. Geiger, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Sept. 27, 2017), Rex Martinez Sep 2017

Gordon V. Geiger, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Sept. 27, 2017), Rex Martinez

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that, without notice, a permanent change to custody and visitation violates due process rights, and the affected party must be given the opportunity to respond and rebut the evidence. Further, when the district court conducts an alternative interview with a child, the interviews must be recorded and comply with the Uniform Child Witness Testimony by Alternative Methods Act.


In Re: Parental Rights As To R.T., K.G-T., N.H-T. And E.H-T, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 38 (June 29, 2017), Brittni Griffith Jun 2017

In Re: Parental Rights As To R.T., K.G-T., N.H-T. And E.H-T, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 38 (June 29, 2017), Brittni Griffith

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court reviewed an appeal based on the termination of an individual’s parental rights. The Court held that “[a] party petitioning to terminate parental rights must establish by clear and convincing evidence that (1) termination is in the child’s best interest, and 2) parental fault exists.” Relying on previous decisions, the Court confirmed that poverty may not be a factor when it determines “parental fault,” but the Court may consider a parent’s compliance with a case plan. Here, the Court reaffirmed the district court’s decision because it relied on “substantial evidence” that Appellant did not follow ...


Vaile V. Porsboll, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 30 (June 22, 2017), Stephanie Glantz Jun 2017

Vaile V. Porsboll, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 30 (June 22, 2017), Stephanie Glantz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Nevada child support order controls Norway order when the parents filed for divorce in Nevada, even though the children reside in Norway. Additionally, the Nevada Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hold the parent in contempt and to impose sanctions for failure to meet his or her child support obligations.


Nguyen V. Boynes, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 32 (June 22, 2017), Angela Lee Jun 2017

Nguyen V. Boynes, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 32 (June 22, 2017), Angela Lee

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court held that granting joint legal and physical custody to the non-adoptive parent in a same-sex couple adoption does not violate the equitable adoption doctrine or the equal protection clauses of the United States and Nevada State Constitutions.


Klabacka V. Nelson, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 24 (May 25, 2017), Christopher Kelly May 2017

Klabacka V. Nelson, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 24 (May 25, 2017), Christopher Kelly

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) family courts have subject matter jurisdiction in divorce proceedings that involve issues otherwise outside the scope of family courts, (2) parol evidence may not be considered to determine party intent to form separate property agreements and self-settled spendthrift trusts where the written agreements are valid and unambiguous, (3) a court order equalizing assets between different spendthrift trusts is improper because the NRS protects against court orders that move assets from trusts and against moves that do not benefit trust beneficiaries, (4) spendthrift trusts may not be reached for payment of personal obligations not known at ...


In Re Parental Rights As To M.M.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (May 11, 2017), Hayley Cummings May 2017

In Re Parental Rights As To M.M.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (May 11, 2017), Hayley Cummings

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) when a parent is deemed incompetent to stand a criminal trial, there is no statutory authority requiring the district court to continue a parallel parental rights termination trial so that the parent can regain competence; and (2) when a litigant fails to object to the State’s method of service in initial pleadings or during trial, the litigant waives all challenges to the service of a parental rights termination by publication.


Petit V. Adrianzen, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (Apr. 13, 2017), Skyler Sullivan Apr 2017

Petit V. Adrianzen, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (Apr. 13, 2017), Skyler Sullivan

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considers, as a matter of first impression, the standard of proof to be applied by district courts in resolving initial naming disputes of a child of married parents. The focus should be on the best interest of the child and neither parent should have the burden of proof. The Court held the district court determined the child’s name should be hyphenated to include both parent’s surnames and, in doing so, considered the best interests of the child and, thus, the order is affirmed.


Racial Anxieties In Adoption: Reflections On Adoptive Couple, White Parenthood, And Constitutional Challenges To The Icwa, Addie C. Rolnick Jan 2017

Racial Anxieties In Adoption: Reflections On Adoptive Couple, White Parenthood, And Constitutional Challenges To The Icwa, Addie C. Rolnick

Scholarly Works

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is under fire from people who argue that it interferes with adoptions and violates the constitution by doing so. The current crop of lawsuits is an outgrowth of a 2012 case in which the Supreme Court heard its second-ever challenge to the law. While the Court sidestepped the most far-reaching anti-ICWA arguments, the majority opinion evidenced a deep skepticism about the law. This skepticism led the Court to narrow the law’s application so that it didn’t apply to the family involved, and it seemed to invite further challenges to the law.


Davidson V. Davidson, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Sept. 29, 2016), Hunter Davidson Sep 2016

Davidson V. Davidson, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Sept. 29, 2016), Hunter Davidson

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that: (1) the six-year statute of limitations in NRS 11.190(1)(a) applies to claims for enforcement of a property distribution provision in a divorce decree; and (2) the statute of limitations period in an action on a divorce decree commences “from the last transaction or the last item charged or last credit given.”


Kar V. Kar, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (August 12, 2016), Briana Martinez Aug 2016

Kar V. Kar, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (August 12, 2016), Briana Martinez

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to modify child custody and support. The Court held that the district court lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction when the parents and child left Nevada. However, this did not end the jurisdictional analysis. The district court should have considered whether it retained jurisdiction under NRS 125.315(2) and NRS 125.305.


Harrison V. Harrison, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Jul. 28, 2016), Douglas H. Smith Jul 2016

Harrison V. Harrison, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Jul. 28, 2016), Douglas H. Smith

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that a district court’s written order concerning the custody of two minor children did not violate public policy when its stipulations provided (1) that it was within the discretion of each minor child, after reaching the age of 14, to decide how much time to spend with either of their divorced parents as long as the original arrangement for joint physical custody remained intact, and (2) that a “parent coordinator” would be appointed to resolve disputes and whose role could be defined by a written district court order. Three justices dissented that the first provision encroaches ...


Lewis V. Lewis, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (June 30, 2016), Paul George Jun 2016

Lewis V. Lewis, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (June 30, 2016), Paul George

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A contempt order that does not contain a purge clause is criminal in nature, therefore the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies.


Valdez V. Aguilar, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (May 26, 2016), Kory Koerperich May 2016

Valdez V. Aguilar, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (May 26, 2016), Kory Koerperich

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that NRS 425.360(4) does not exempt a noncustodial parent, who receives public assistance, from a court-ordered child support obligation to the custodial parent of their child. NRS 425.360(4) only exempts a parent from a debt for support owed to the Division of Welfare and Supportive Services.


State V. Second Jud. Dist. Ct. (Ayden A.), 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 33 (April 28, 2016), Audra Powell Apr 2016

State V. Second Jud. Dist. Ct. (Ayden A.), 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 33 (April 28, 2016), Audra Powell

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

NRS 432B.6075 governs emergency admission of children with emotional disturbances to facilities for their protection, and requires a petition for continuance of admission after an emergency admission within five days of the involuntary placement.[1] Based on N.R.C.P. 6(a), which governs the computing of time for judicial purposes, the Court held that the five day limitation on filing a petition was based on judicial, not calendar, days. The Court granted the State’s petition for a writ of mandamus, directing the district court to vacate its order denying the State’s NRS 432B petition.


In Re Parental Rights As To M.F., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (Mar. 31, 2016), Shannon Diaz Mar 2016

In Re Parental Rights As To M.F., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (Mar. 31, 2016), Shannon Diaz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that neither the United States Constitution nor the Nevada Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by jury in a termination of parental rights proceeding. The Court also concluded that the district court relied on substantial evidence in terminating appellant Jesus F.’s parental rights.


Micone V. Micone, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 14 (March 3, 2016), Ronni Boskovich Mar 2016

Micone V. Micone, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 14 (March 3, 2016), Ronni Boskovich

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered an appeal from a district court order modifying a child custody decree. The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Eight Judicial District Court’s order. The Court affirmed the District Court’s order barring modification of certain child support arrearages. The Court reversed the District Court’s award of primary physical custody to the child’s nonparty grandparents.


Biology, Genetics, Nurture, And The Law: The Expansion Of The Legal Definition Of Family To Include Three Or More Parents, Myrisha S. Lewis Mar 2016

Biology, Genetics, Nurture, And The Law: The Expansion Of The Legal Definition Of Family To Include Three Or More Parents, Myrisha S. Lewis

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.