Dancer v. Dancer (Child Custody)
This text of Dancer v. Dancer (Child Custody) (Dancer v. Dancer (Child Custody)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Dancer v. Dancer (Child Custody), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dancer-v-dancer-child-custody-nev-2015.