NRS
3.0105 Establishment of family court in county whose population is
100,000 or more; assignment of judges; required instruction.
1. There is hereby established, in each
judicial district that includes a county whose population is 100,000 or more, a
family court as a division of the district court.
2. If the caseload of the family court so
requires, the Chief Judge may assign one or more district judges of the
judicial district to act temporarily as judges of the family court.
3. If for any reason a judge of the family
court is unable to act, any other district judge of the judicial district may
be assigned as provided in subsection 2 to act temporarily as judge of the
family court.
4. A district judge assigned to the family
court pursuant to subsection 2 or 3 for a period of 90 or more days, except for
a district judge or hearing master assigned to hear proceedings brought
pursuant to NRS 433A.200 to 433A.330, inclusive, or NRS 433A.335 to 433A.345, inclusive, must attend the
instruction required pursuant to subsection 1 of NRS 3.028. District judges must not be
assigned to the family court pursuant to subsections 2 and 3 on a rotating
basis.
(Added to NRS by 1991,
2174; A 1995,
1493; 1999,
706; 2017,
3009; 2021,
3103)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1994–2014 · leading case:
Landreth v. Malik, 251 P.3d 163 (Nev. 2011).
Landreth v. Malik, 251 P.3d 163 (Nev. 2011).
· cites it 6× “The dissenting justices' concern ignores NRS 3.0105(2) and (3), which unequivocally allow general jurisdiction district court judges to sit in the family court division.”
Pearson v. Pearson, 871 P.2d 343 (Nev. 1994).
· cites it 2× “See NRS 3.0105 and NRS 3.223. Although Judge Whitehead could properly complete this custody determination that he has presided over for such a lengthy period, we do not consider it fair to him that he do so.”
Landreth v. Malik, 221 P.3d 1265 (Nev. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Following the constitutional amendment of Section 6(2), the Legislature established a family court, NRS 3.0105, and dictated the original and exclusive jurisdiction of family courts, along with the types of cases in which the family court may have concurrent jurisdiction.”
Miller v. Pease (Child Custody) (Nev. 2014).
“019 (requiring two judges in the Ninth Judicial District); NRS 3.0105(1) (establishing family courts in judicial districts with populations exceeding 100,000 persons); Landreth, 127 Nev.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.0105(1) — 2 cases
Landreth v. Malik, 221 P.3d 1265 (Nev. 2009).
“Following the constitutional amendment of Section 6(2), the Legislature established a family court, NRS 3.0105, and dictated the original and exclusive jurisdiction of family courts, along with the types of cases in which the family court may have concurrent jurisdiction.”
Miller v. Pease (Child Custody) (Nev. 2014).
“019 (requiring two judges in the Ninth Judicial District); NRS 3.0105(1) (establishing family courts in judicial districts with populations exceeding 100,000 persons); Landreth, 127 Nev.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.0105(2) — 1 case
Landreth v. Malik, 251 P.3d 163 (Nev. 2011).
“The dissenting justices' concern ignores NRS 3.0105(2) and (3), which unequivocally allow general jurisdiction district court judges to sit in the family court division.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.0105(4) — 2 cases
Landreth v. Malik, 251 P.3d 163 (Nev. 2011).
“The dissenting justices' concern ignores NRS 3.0105(2) and (3), which unequivocally allow general jurisdiction district court judges to sit in the family court division.”
Landreth v. Malik, 221 P.3d 1265 (Nev. 2009).
“Following the constitutional amendment of Section 6(2), the Legislature established a family court, NRS 3.0105, and dictated the original and exclusive jurisdiction of family courts, along with the types of cases in which the family court may have concurrent jurisdiction.”
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.