Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 125A - UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125A.315 (2026)

Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 125A.315  Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.

      1.  Except as otherwise provided in NRS 125A.335, a court of this state which has made a child custody determination consistent with NRS 125A.305 or 125A.325 has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until:

      (a) A court of this state determines that the child, the child’s parents and any person acting as a parent do not have a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships; or

      (b) A court of this state or a court of another state determines that the child, the child’s parents and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in this state.

      2.  A court of this state which has made a child custody determination and does not have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to this section may modify that determination only if it has jurisdiction to make an initial determination pursuant to NRS 125A.305.

      (Added to NRS by 2003, 994)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2011–2016 · leading case: Friedman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court Ex Rel. Cnty. of Clark, 264 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Friedman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court Ex Rel. Cnty. of Clark, 264 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2011). · cites it 22× “Ordinarily, this would give Nevada "exclusive, continuing jurisdiction" under NRS 125A.315. [3] However, NRS 125A.315(1)(b) provides that exclusive, continuing jurisdiction ceases when "[a] court of this state or a court of another state determines that the child, the child's…”
Kar Vs. Kar (child Custody), 2016 NV 63 (Nev. 2016). · cites it 10× “Once it determined that the child and the child's parents no longer resided in Nevada, the district court lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under NRS 125A.315(1). But this did not mean, as the district court erroneously held, that it lost all jurisdiction in the matter.”
Kar Vs. Kar (child Custody), 2016 NV 63 (Nev. 2016). · cites it 5× “Once it determined that the child and the child's parents no longer resided in Nevada, the district court lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under NRS 125A.315(1). But this did not mean, as the district court erroneously held, that it lost all jurisdiction in the matter.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125A.315(1) — 2 cases
Kar Vs. Kar (child Custody), 2016 NV 63 (Nev. 2016). “Once it determined that the child and the child's parents no longer resided in Nevada, the district court lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under NRS 125A.315(1). But this did not mean, as the district court erroneously held, that it lost all jurisdiction in the matter.”
Kar Vs. Kar (child Custody), 2016 NV 63 (Nev. 2016). “Once it determined that the child and the child's parents no longer resided in Nevada, the district court lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under NRS 125A.315(1). But this did not mean, as the district court erroneously held, that it lost all jurisdiction in the matter.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125A.315(1)(a) — 3 cases
Friedman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court Ex Rel. Cnty. of Clark, 264 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2011). “Ordinarily, this would give Nevada "exclusive, continuing jurisdiction" under NRS 125A.315. [3] However, NRS 125A.315(1)(b) provides that exclusive, continuing jurisdiction ceases when "[a] court of this state or a court of another state determines that the child, the child's…”
Kar Vs. Kar (child Custody), 2016 NV 63 (Nev. 2016). “Once it determined that the child and the child's parents no longer resided in Nevada, the district court lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under NRS 125A.315(1). But this did not mean, as the district court erroneously held, that it lost all jurisdiction in the matter.”
Kar Vs. Kar (child Custody), 2016 NV 63 (Nev. 2016). “Once it determined that the child and the child's parents no longer resided in Nevada, the district court lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under NRS 125A.315(1). But this did not mean, as the district court erroneously held, that it lost all jurisdiction in the matter.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125A.315(1)(b) — 3 cases
Friedman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court Ex Rel. Cnty. of Clark, 264 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2011). “Ordinarily, this would give Nevada "exclusive, continuing jurisdiction" under NRS 125A.315. [3] However, NRS 125A.315(1)(b) provides that exclusive, continuing jurisdiction ceases when "[a] court of this state or a court of another state determines that the child, the child's…”
Kar Vs. Kar (child Custody), 2016 NV 63 (Nev. 2016). “Once it determined that the child and the child's parents no longer resided in Nevada, the district court lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under NRS 125A.315(1). But this did not mean, as the district court erroneously held, that it lost all jurisdiction in the matter.”
Kar Vs. Kar (child Custody), 2016 NV 63 (Nev. 2016). “Once it determined that the child and the child's parents no longer resided in Nevada, the district court lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under NRS 125A.315(1). But this did not mean, as the district court erroneously held, that it lost all jurisdiction in the matter.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125A.315(2) — 3 cases
Friedman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court Ex Rel. Cnty. of Clark, 264 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2011). “Ordinarily, this would give Nevada "exclusive, continuing jurisdiction" under NRS 125A.315. [3] However, NRS 125A.315(1)(b) provides that exclusive, continuing jurisdiction ceases when "[a] court of this state or a court of another state determines that the child, the child's…”
Kar Vs. Kar (child Custody), 2016 NV 63 (Nev. 2016). “Once it determined that the child and the child's parents no longer resided in Nevada, the district court lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under NRS 125A.315(1). But this did not mean, as the district court erroneously held, that it lost all jurisdiction in the matter.”
Kar Vs. Kar (child Custody), 2016 NV 63 (Nev. 2016). “Once it determined that the child and the child's parents no longer resided in Nevada, the district court lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under NRS 125A.315(1). But this did not mean, as the district court erroneously held, that it lost all jurisdiction in the matter.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125A.315(l)(a) — 1 case
Friedman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court Ex Rel. Cnty. of Clark, 264 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2011). “Ordinarily, this would give Nevada "exclusive, continuing jurisdiction" under NRS 125A.315. [3] However, NRS 125A.315(1)(b) provides that exclusive, continuing jurisdiction ceases when "[a] court of this state or a court of another state determines that the child, the child's…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125A.315(l)(b) — 1 case
Friedman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court Ex Rel. Cnty. of Clark, 264 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2011). “Ordinarily, this would give Nevada "exclusive, continuing jurisdiction" under NRS 125A.315. [3] However, NRS 125A.315(1)(b) provides that exclusive, continuing jurisdiction ceases when "[a] court of this state or a court of another state determines that the child, the child's…”
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.