Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 125 - DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125.020 (2026)

Verified complaint; residence or domicile; jurisdiction of district court

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 125.020  Verified complaint; residence or domicile; jurisdiction of district court.

      1.  Divorce from the bonds of matrimony may be obtained for the causes provided in NRS 125.010, by verified complaint to the district court of any county:

      (a) In which the cause therefor accrued;

      (b) In which the defendant resides or may be found;

      (c) In which the plaintiff resides;

      (d) In which the parties last cohabited; or

      (e) If plaintiff resided 6 weeks in the State before suit was brought.

      2.  Unless the cause of action accrued within the county while the plaintiff and defendant were actually domiciled therein, no court has jurisdiction to grant a divorce unless either the plaintiff or defendant has been resident of the State for a period of not less than 6 weeks preceding the commencement of the action.

      [Part 22:33:1861; A 1875, 63; 1913, 10, 159; 1915, 26; 1921, 2, 386; 1923, 389; 1927, 126; 1931, 161; 1931 NCL § 9460]—(NRS A 1981, 179)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1959–2023 · leading case: Senjab Vs. Alhulaibi (child Custody), 2021 NV 64 (Nev. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Senjab Vs. Alhulaibi (child Custody), 2021 NV 64 (Nev. 2021). · cites it 36× “, domicile), so the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under NRS 125.020, Nevada's divorce-jurisdiction statute.”
Vaile v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 44 P.3d 506 (Nev. 2002). “NRS 125.020(2) states, in pertinent part, “no court has juris *269 diction to grant a divorce unless either the plaintiff or defendant has been resident of the state for a period of not less than 6 weeks preceding the commencement of the action.”
Bradford v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 308 P.3d 122 (Nev. 2013). “1 NRS 125.020. In addition, the pending separate custody suit does not render ongoing the issues involved in the divorce proceeding.”
Woodruff v. Woodruff, 573 P.2d 206 (Nev. 1978). · cites it 2× “Appellant’s last contention has merit and necessitates further- proceedings.”
Hewitt v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 490 F. Supp. 1358 (E.D. Va. 1980). “1969) (six weeks); Nevada, Nev.Rev.Stat. § 125.020 (Supp.1969) (six weeks); Utah, Utah Code Ann.”
Vaile v. Dist. Ct., 44 P.3d 506 (Nev. 2002). “NRS 125.020(2) states, in pertinent part, "no court has jurisdiction to grant a divorce unless either the plaintiff or defendant has been resident of the state for a period of not less than 6 weeks preceding the commencement of the action.”
Moore v. Moore, 336 P.2d 1073 (Nev. 1959). “” NRS 125.020. 2 Respondent also sustains the judgment vacating the order to set aside the decree because the order setting aside the decree was not made within six months thereafter.”
Thurston v. Thurston, 487 P.2d 342 (Nev. 1971). “NRS 125.020(e). Her contention is that the corroboration requirement of NRS 54.”
Jones v. Jones (Nev. 2016). “" Adam opposed Dara's motion, arguing that the determination of a defendant's county of residence is an issue for the trier of fact, that NRS 125.020(2) requires Dart to have been a resident of Douglas County for at least six weeks prior to commencement of the action to have…”
Agwara v. Agwara (Nev. 2019). “See NRS 125.020(2). In dividing the community estate between the parties, the district court simply placed the value of the Nigerian assets in Liborius' proverbial column of community assets Liborius' challenge, then, is ultimately not to the jurisdiction of the court but over a…”
Yang v. Pan (Child Custody) (Nev. 2019). “NRS 125.020(1)(e). We conclude that the district court's determination that Pan met Nevada's six-week residency requirement is supported by substantial evidence.”
Yang v. Pan (Child Custody) (Nev. 2019). “NRS 125.020(1)(e). We conclude that the district court's determination that Pan met Nevada's six-week residency requirement is supported by substantial evidence.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125.020(1) — 1 case
Senjab Vs. Alhulaibi (child Custody), 2021 NV 64 (Nev. 2021). “, domicile), so the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under NRS 125.020, Nevada's divorce-jurisdiction statute.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125.020(1)(e) — 3 cases
Senjab Vs. Alhulaibi (child Custody), 2021 NV 64 (Nev. 2021). “, domicile), so the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under NRS 125.020, Nevada's divorce-jurisdiction statute.”
Yang v. Pan (Child Custody) (Nev. 2019). “NRS 125.020(1)(e). We conclude that the district court's determination that Pan met Nevada's six-week residency requirement is supported by substantial evidence.”
Yang v. Pan (Child Custody) (Nev. 2019). “NRS 125.020(1)(e). We conclude that the district court's determination that Pan met Nevada's six-week residency requirement is supported by substantial evidence.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125.020(2) — 5 cases
Senjab Vs. Alhulaibi (child Custody), 2021 NV 64 (Nev. 2021). “, domicile), so the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under NRS 125.020, Nevada's divorce-jurisdiction statute.”
Vaile v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 44 P.3d 506 (Nev. 2002). “NRS 125.020(2) states, in pertinent part, “no court has juris *269 diction to grant a divorce unless either the plaintiff or defendant has been resident of the state for a period of not less than 6 weeks preceding the commencement of the action.”
Vaile v. Dist. Ct., 44 P.3d 506 (Nev. 2002). “NRS 125.020(2) states, in pertinent part, "no court has jurisdiction to grant a divorce unless either the plaintiff or defendant has been resident of the state for a period of not less than 6 weeks preceding the commencement of the action.”
Jones v. Jones (Nev. 2016). “" Adam opposed Dara's motion, arguing that the determination of a defendant's county of residence is an issue for the trier of fact, that NRS 125.020(2) requires Dart to have been a resident of Douglas County for at least six weeks prior to commencement of the action to have…”
Agwara v. Agwara (Nev. 2019). “See NRS 125.020(2). In dividing the community estate between the parties, the district court simply placed the value of the Nigerian assets in Liborius' proverbial column of community assets Liborius' challenge, then, is ultimately not to the jurisdiction of the court but over a…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125.020(e) — 1 case
Thurston v. Thurston, 487 P.2d 342 (Nev. 1971). “NRS 125.020(e). Her contention is that the corroboration requirement of NRS 54.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125.020(l)(e) — 2 cases
Woodruff v. Woodruff, 573 P.2d 206 (Nev. 1978). “Appellant’s last contention has merit and necessitates further- proceedings.”
Patel v. Patel, 604 P.2d 816 (Nev. 1980).
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.