Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 123 - RIGHTS OF MARRIED COUPLES
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 123.110 (2026)

When spouse must support other spouse

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 123.110  When spouse must support other spouse.  A spouse must support his or her spouse out of his or her separate property when the spouse has no separate property and they have no community property and the spouse, from infirmity, is not able or competent to support himself or herself.

      [24:119:1873; B § 174; BH § 522; C § 533; RL § 2178; NCL § 3378]—(NRS A 2017, 762)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1969–2006 · leading case: Tammila G. v. State, Dep't of Human Resources, 148 P.3d 759 (Nev. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tammila G. v. State, Dep't of Human Resources, 148 P.3d 759 (Nev. 2006). “13 NRS 123.110(2). 14 Tammila also argues that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence of an adoptive placement because it did not assert evidence that the children would consent to being adopted, as required under NRS 127.”
United Fire Ins. v. McClelland, 780 P.2d 193 (Nev. 1989). “NRS 123.110; NRS 450.390(2). A South Carolina Supreme Court case supports the McClellands’ contention, holding that a spouse who is individually liable for her husband’s medical expenses has sufficient interest in enforcement of the health insurance policy to enable her to…”
Swogger v. Sunrise Hosp., Inc., 496 P.2d 751 (Nev. 1972). “An exception to that rule appears in NRS 123.110 which provides that “the wife must support the husband out of her separate property when he has no separate property and they have no community property and he, from infirmity, is not able or competent to support himself.”
Rush v. Rush, 460 P.2d 844 (Nev. 1969). “NRS 123.110. That question is not before us in this case.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 123.110(2): 1 case
Tammila G. v. State, Dep't of Human Resources, 148 P.3d 759 (Nev. 2006). “13 NRS 123.110(2). 14 Tammila also argues that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence of an adoptive placement because it did not assert evidence that the children would consent to being adopted, as required under NRS 127.”
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.