Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 122 - MARRIAGE
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 122.010 (2026)

What constitutes marriage; no common-law marriages after March 29, 1943

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 122.010  What constitutes marriage; no common-law marriages after March 29, 1943.

      1.  Marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, is a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential. Consent alone will not constitute marriage; it must be followed by solemnization as authorized and provided by this chapter.

      2.  The provisions of subsection 1 requiring solemnization shall not invalidate any marriage contract in effect prior to March 29, 1943, to which the consent only of the parties capable in law of contracting the contract was essential.

      [1:33:1861; A 1943, 279; 1943 NCL § 4050]

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1969–2023 · leading case: W. States Constr., Inc. v. Michoff, 840 P.2d 1220 (Nev. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
W. States Constr., Inc. v. Michoff, 840 P.2d 1220 (Nev. 1992). · cites it 6× “NRS 122.010; NRS 123.220. "[N]o agreement between cohabiting parties can create community property or any other legal relationship similar to marriage.”
Watson v. Watson, 596 P.2d 507 (Nev. 1979). · cites it 2× “Although the district court found that the alleged cohabitational relationship had existed for several years, it held that such relationship was not a defense to the action. We agree. Appellant contends that respondent’s living arrangement constitutes a “de facto marriage”,…”
Sevcik v. Sandoval, 911 F. Supp. 2d 996 (D. Nev. 2012). “at § 122.010. Except as otherwise provided in the statutes, domestic partners in Nevada have the same rights and responsibilities as spouses have, Nev.”
Hay v. Hay, 678 P.2d 672 (Nev. 1984). “NRS 122.010. We recognize that the state has a strong public policy interest in encouraging legal marriage.”
Orr v. Bowen, 648 F. Supp. 1510 (D. Nev. 1986). · cites it 2× “2d 672, 674 (1984) (citing NRS § 122.010 (1986)), but does recognize common law marriages that arise in another state so long as that state’s legal requirements are met.”
Kirkpatrick v. Dist. Ct., 43 P.3d 998 (Nev. 2002). “[42] See also NRS 122.010 (stating that marriage is a civil contract that requires the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting).”
Ponina v. Leland, 454 P.2d 16 (Nev. 1969). “NRS 122.010. Still, the legislature has provided that Indians living off a reservation are permitted to consummate a marriage in accordance with tribal customs which shall have the same validity as marriages performed in any other manner in Nevada.”
Kirkpatrick v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 43 P.3d 998 (Nev. 2002). “See Faultless Father, supra note 28, at 763-64. Accordingly, great care must be taken by the district court when deciding whether a non-consenting parent is entitled to notice.”
Candelaria v. Kelly, 535 P.3d 234 (Nev. 2023). · cites it 6× “That said, we are not persuaded by Richard's claim that he is not advocating for this court to adopt common-law marriage in Nevada because adopting the In re Madrone but-for test would in effect recognize a common-law marriage in violation of NRS 122.010, and he has not shown,…”
Bovaird v. Bovaird, No. 1 CA-CV 21-0698-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. June 16, 2022). “¶9 Arizona law does not provide for termination of spousal maintenance upon a spouse’s romantic cohabitation unless the parties agree otherwise.”
Shankle v. Shankle, 216 S.E.2d 915 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975). “211 (1968); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 122.010 (1973). Circum *569 stantial evidence, however, may be used to prove a ceremonial marriage in North Carolina, and direct evidence of a ceremony apparently is not required: “By the common law .”
Amaro v. Comm'r, 29 T.C.M. 914 (T.C. 1970). · cites it 2× “As to the dependency exemptions for Phyllis and her children, it is abundantly clear that respondent *160 has properly disallowed such exemptions for the year 1966.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 122.010(1): 2 cases
W. States Constr., Inc. v. Michoff, 840 P.2d 1220 (Nev. 1992). “NRS 122.010; NRS 123.220. "[N]o agreement between cohabiting parties can create community property or any other legal relationship similar to marriage.”
Watson v. Watson, 596 P.2d 507 (Nev. 1979). “Although the district court found that the alleged cohabitational relationship had existed for several years, it held that such relationship was not a defense to the action. We agree. Appellant contends that respondent’s living arrangement constitutes a “de facto marriage”,…”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 122.010(2): 1 case
Candelaria v. Kelly, 535 P.3d 234 (Nev. 2023). “That said, we are not persuaded by Richard's claim that he is not advocating for this court to adopt common-law marriage in Nevada because adopting the In re Madrone but-for test would in effect recognize a common-law marriage in violation of NRS 122.010, and he has not shown,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.