NRS
125A.355 Simultaneous proceedings.
1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 125A.335, a court of this state may
not exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to NRS
125A.305 to 125A.395, inclusive,
if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a proceeding concerning
the custody of the child has been commenced in a court of another state having
jurisdiction substantially in conformity with the provisions of this chapter,
unless the proceeding has been terminated or is stayed by the court of the
other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum pursuant
to NRS 125A.365.
2. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 125A.335, a court of this state,
before hearing a child custody proceeding, shall examine the court documents
and other information supplied by the parties pursuant to NRS 125A.385. If the court determines
that a child custody proceeding has been commenced in a court in another state
having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter, the court of this state shall stay its proceeding and communicate with
the court of the other state. If the court of the state having jurisdiction
substantially in accordance with the provisions of this chapter does not
determine that the court of this state is a more appropriate forum, the court
of this state shall dismiss the proceeding.
3. In a proceeding to modify a child
custody determination, a court of this state shall determine whether a
proceeding to enforce the determination has been commenced in another state. If
a proceeding to enforce a child custody determination has been commenced in
another state, the court may:
(a) Stay the proceeding for modification pending
the entry of an order of a court of the other state enforcing, staying, denying
or dismissing the proceeding for enforcement;
(b) Enjoin the parties from continuing with the
proceeding for enforcement; or
(c) Proceed with the modification under
conditions it considers appropriate.
(Added to NRS by 2003,
996)
Notes of Decisions
Friedman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court Ex Rel. Cnty. of Clark, 264 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2011).
· cites it 10× “This concession, given the district court's finding that the parents and the children presently reside in California, at minimum, established Daniel's pending California proceeding as "a child custody proceeding.”
Phillips v. Phillips (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 3× “3Indeed, the district court was required to consider the TPO action as proceedings impacting the district court's custody determination, see NRS 125A.355(2) (stating that "a court of this state, before hearing a child custody proceeding, shall examine the court documents and…”
Gill v. Gill (child Custody), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 19 (Nev. 2026).
· cites it 2× “See NRS 125A.355(2). But Canada has not adopted the UCCJEA, and we cannot compel its courts to communicate with Nevada's courts.”
Gill v. Gill (child Custody), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 19 (Nev. 2026).
“See NRS 125A.355(2): see also NRS 125A.275. The district court should also direct briefing from the 10 Supreme Court OF Nevapa (0) 947A a parties and conduct a proper analysis pursuant to NRS 125A.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125A.355(2) — 4 cases
Friedman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court Ex Rel. Cnty. of Clark, 264 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2011).
“This concession, given the district court's finding that the parents and the children presently reside in California, at minimum, established Daniel's pending California proceeding as "a child custody proceeding.”
Phillips v. Phillips (Nev. 2022).
“3Indeed, the district court was required to consider the TPO action as proceedings impacting the district court's custody determination, see NRS 125A.355(2) (stating that "a court of this state, before hearing a child custody proceeding, shall examine the court documents and…”
Gill v. Gill (child Custody), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 19 (Nev. 2026).
“See NRS 125A.355(2). But Canada has not adopted the UCCJEA, and we cannot compel its courts to communicate with Nevada's courts.”
Gill v. Gill (child Custody), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 19 (Nev. 2026).
“See NRS 125A.355(2): see also NRS 125A.275. The district court should also direct briefing from the 10 Supreme Court OF Nevapa (0) 947A a parties and conduct a proper analysis pursuant to NRS 125A.”
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.