Dancer v. Dancer (Child Custody)

Nevada Supreme Court·Decided July 23, 2015·No. 67214·Unpublished

Opinion

150, 161 P.3d 239, 242 (2007) (explaining that modification of primary physical custody is only warranted when there has been a change in circumstances and when the modification will serve the child's best interests); Rooney v. Rooney, 109 Nev. 540, 542-43, 853 P.2d 123, 124-25 (1993). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'

Gibbons

Pickering

cc: Hon. T. Arthur Ritchie, Jr., District Judge, Family Court Division Lansford W. Levitt, Settlement Judge Michael A. Root Michael Edward Dancer Eighth District Court Clerk

"We have determined that this appeal should be submitted for decision on the fast track statement and response and the appellate record without oral argument. See NRAP 3E(g)(1); see also NRAP 3401).

To the extent appellant's arguments are not addressed in this order, we conclude they lack merit.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dancer v. Dancer (Child Custody), (Neb. 2015).

Dancer v. Dancer (Child Custody) (Dancer v. Dancer (Child Custody)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rooney v. Rooney
853 P.2d 123 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1993)
Ellis v. Carucci
161 P.3d 239 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2007)