Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.025 (2026)

Chief Judge in certain judicial districts: Selection; duties; assignment of certain cases to same department of family court. [Effective through June 30, 2026.]

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 3.025  Chief Judge in certain judicial districts: Selection; duties; assignment of certain cases to same department of family court. [Effective through June 30, 2026.]

      1.  In each judicial district that includes a county whose population is 100,000 or more, the district judges of that judicial district shall choose from among those district judges a Chief Judge who is to be the presiding judge of the judicial district.

      2.  The Chief Judge shall:

      (a) Assign cases to each judge in the judicial district;

      (b) Prescribe the hours of court;

      (c) Adopt such other rules as are necessary for the orderly conduct of court business; and

      (d) Perform all other duties of the Chief Judge or of a presiding judge that are set forth in this chapter and any other provision of NRS.

      3.  If a case involves a matter within the jurisdiction of the family court and:

      (a) The parties to the case are also the parties in any other pending case or were the parties in any other previously decided case assigned to a department of the family court in the judicial district; or

      (b) A child involved in the case is also involved in any other pending case or was involved in any other previously decided case assigned to a department of the family court in the judicial district, other than a case within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to title 5 of NRS,

Ê the Chief Judge shall assign the case to the department of the family court to which the other case is presently assigned or, if the other case has been decided, to the department of the family court that decided the other case, unless a different assignment is required by another provision of NRS, a court rule or the Revised Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct or the Chief Judge determines that a different assignment is necessary because of considerations related to the management of the caseload of the district judges within the judicial district. If a case described in this subsection is heard initially by a master, the recommendation, report or order of the master must be submitted to the district judge of the department of the family court to which the case has been assigned pursuant to this subsection for consideration and decision by that district judge.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 1502; A 1981, 873; 1999, 706, 2020; 2003, 1114; 2023, 2604)

      NRS 3.025  Chief Judge in certain judicial districts: Selection; duties; assignment of certain cases to same department of family court. [Effective July 1, 2026.]

      1.  In each judicial district that includes a county whose population is 100,000 or more, the district judges of that judicial district shall choose from among those district judges a Chief Judge who is to be the presiding judge of the judicial district.

      2.  The Chief Judge shall:

      (a) Assign cases to each judge in the judicial district;

      (b) Prescribe the hours of court;

      (c) Adopt such other rules as are necessary for the orderly conduct of court business; and

      (d) Perform all other duties of the Chief Judge or of a presiding judge that are set forth in this chapter and any other provision of NRS.

      3.  If a case involves a matter within the jurisdiction of the family court and:

      (a) The parties to the case are also the parties in any other pending case or were the parties in any other previously decided case assigned to a department of the family court in the judicial district; or

      (b) A child involved in the case is also involved in any other pending case or was involved in any other previously decided case assigned to a department of the family court in the judicial district, other than a case within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to title 5 of NRS,

Ê the Chief Judge shall assign the case to the department of the family court to which the other case is presently assigned or, if the other case has been decided, to the department of the family court that decided the other case, unless a different assignment is required by another provision of NRS, a court rule or the Revised Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct or the Chief Judge determines that a different assignment is necessary because of considerations related to the management of the caseload of the district judges within the judicial district. If a case described in this subsection is heard initially by a judicial officer, the recommendation, report or order of the judicial officer must be submitted to the district judge of the department of the family court to which the case has been assigned pursuant to this subsection for consideration and decision by that district judge.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 1502; A 1981, 873; 1999, 706, 2020; 2003, 1114; 2023, 2604; 2025, 2189, effective July 1, 2026)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case: Halverson v. Hardcastle, 163 P.3d 428 (Nev. 2007).
Halverson v. Hardcastle, 163 P.3d 428 (Nev. 2007). · cites it 8× “Moreover, we have “acquiesced” in this legislative pronouncement: SCR 16(1) provides that districts that elect a chief judge under NRS 3.025 must do so in accordance with the local rules and that this court must then ratify the selection before the chief judge assumes the…”
Landreth v. Malik, 251 P.3d 163 (Nev. 2011). · cites it 2× “60; see also WDCR 2; NRS 3.025. [7] We do note that Malik satisfied NRCP 55(b)(2) by sending a notice of hearing for the default judgment on March 22, 2007, more than three days before the default judgment was entered on April 2, 2007.”
Fergusen v. State, 192 P.3d 712 (Nev. 2008). · cites it 2× “Additionally, the State contends that NRS 3.025 and NRS 3.026 require the assignment and adjudication of competency matters in as uniform a manner as practicable.”
Ivey v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 299 P.3d 354 (Nev. 2013). “NRS 3.025(3). A significant portion of the majority opinion focuses on Caperton , the United States Supreme Court’s most recent and expansive decision regarding due process and judicial campaign contributions.”
Nance v. Ferraro, 418 P.3d 679 (Nev. 2018). “, NRS 3.025(3) ; Hearing on A.B. 154 Before the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, 70th Leg.”
Goldberg v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 572 P.2d 521 (Nev. 1977). “120(1), which provides, in pertinent part: “The supreme court may make rules not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the state for its own government, the government of the district courts, and the government of the State Bar of Nevada.”
Jeaness v. Second Jud. Dist. Court, 626 P.2d 272 (Nev. 1981). · cites it 2× “Moreover, under the Rules of Practice for the Second Judicial District Court, the “calendar judge is the chief judge as referred to in NRS 3.025 and Supreme Court Rule 8.” NRS 3.”
Goldberg v. 8th Jud. Dist. Ct. in & for Cty., 572 P.2d 521 (Nev. 1977). “120(1), which provides, in pertinent part: "The supreme court may make rules not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the state for its own government, the government of the district courts, and the government of the State Bar of Nevada.”
In Re: Guardianship of T.T.H. & T.A.H. (Nev. 2018). · cites it 3× “NRS 3.025(3) further states that 'if a case involves a matter within the jurisdiction of the family court" division, the Chief Judge shall assign the case to family court unless .”
Belcher (Kevin) v. State (Nev. 2022). · cites it 3× “6, § 1 (giving the judiciary authority over the court system); NRS 3.025(2)(c) (giving the chief judge authority to "[a]clopt such other rules or regulations as are necessary for the orderly conduct of court business"); Halverson v.”
Petrilla v. Castillo (Child Custody) (Nev. 2016). “NRS 3.025(3) (providing that when the parties in a case before a family court judge are also parties in another case, the same family court judge shall preside over both cases); EDCR 5.”
In Re: Parental Rights as to L.J.A. C/W 72330 (Nev. 2017). “The assignment of the termination proceeding to the district court judge who presided over the juvenile proceeding was appropriate under Nevada's one judge, one family rule, NRS 3.025(3), and EDCR 5.42 (repealed Jan.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.025(1) — 1 case
Halverson v. Hardcastle, 163 P.3d 428 (Nev. 2007). “Moreover, we have “acquiesced” in this legislative pronouncement: SCR 16(1) provides that districts that elect a chief judge under NRS 3.025 must do so in accordance with the local rules and that this court must then ratify the selection before the chief judge assumes the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.025(1)(a) — 1 case
Halverson v. Hardcastle, 163 P.3d 428 (Nev. 2007). “Moreover, we have “acquiesced” in this legislative pronouncement: SCR 16(1) provides that districts that elect a chief judge under NRS 3.025 must do so in accordance with the local rules and that this court must then ratify the selection before the chief judge assumes the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.025(2) — 3 cases
Halverson v. Hardcastle, 163 P.3d 428 (Nev. 2007). “Moreover, we have “acquiesced” in this legislative pronouncement: SCR 16(1) provides that districts that elect a chief judge under NRS 3.025 must do so in accordance with the local rules and that this court must then ratify the selection before the chief judge assumes the…”
Goldberg v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 572 P.2d 521 (Nev. 1977). “120(1), which provides, in pertinent part: “The supreme court may make rules not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the state for its own government, the government of the district courts, and the government of the State Bar of Nevada.”
Goldberg v. 8th Jud. Dist. Ct. in & for Cty., 572 P.2d 521 (Nev. 1977). “120(1), which provides, in pertinent part: "The supreme court may make rules not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the state for its own government, the government of the district courts, and the government of the State Bar of Nevada.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.025(2)(a) — 1 case
Halverson v. Hardcastle, 163 P.3d 428 (Nev. 2007). “Moreover, we have “acquiesced” in this legislative pronouncement: SCR 16(1) provides that districts that elect a chief judge under NRS 3.025 must do so in accordance with the local rules and that this court must then ratify the selection before the chief judge assumes the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.025(2)(c) — 2 cases
Halverson v. Hardcastle, 163 P.3d 428 (Nev. 2007). “Moreover, we have “acquiesced” in this legislative pronouncement: SCR 16(1) provides that districts that elect a chief judge under NRS 3.025 must do so in accordance with the local rules and that this court must then ratify the selection before the chief judge assumes the…”
Belcher (Kevin) v. State (Nev. 2022). “6, § 1 (giving the judiciary authority over the court system); NRS 3.025(2)(c) (giving the chief judge authority to "[a]clopt such other rules or regulations as are necessary for the orderly conduct of court business"); Halverson v.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.025(2)(d) — 1 case
Halverson v. Hardcastle, 163 P.3d 428 (Nev. 2007). “Moreover, we have “acquiesced” in this legislative pronouncement: SCR 16(1) provides that districts that elect a chief judge under NRS 3.025 must do so in accordance with the local rules and that this court must then ratify the selection before the chief judge assumes the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.025(3) — 11 cases
Ivey v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 299 P.3d 354 (Nev. 2013). “NRS 3.025(3). A significant portion of the majority opinion focuses on Caperton , the United States Supreme Court’s most recent and expansive decision regarding due process and judicial campaign contributions.”
Nance v. Ferraro, 418 P.3d 679 (Nev. 2018). “, NRS 3.025(3) ; Hearing on A.B. 154 Before the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, 70th Leg.”
In Re: Guardianship of T.T.H. & T.A.H. (Nev. 2018). “NRS 3.025(3) further states that 'if a case involves a matter within the jurisdiction of the family court" division, the Chief Judge shall assign the case to family court unless .”
Petrilla v. Castillo (Child Custody) (Nev. 2016). “NRS 3.025(3) (providing that when the parties in a case before a family court judge are also parties in another case, the same family court judge shall preside over both cases); EDCR 5.”
In Re: Parental Rights as to L.J.A. C/W 72330 (Nev. 2017). “The assignment of the termination proceeding to the district court judge who presided over the juvenile proceeding was appropriate under Nevada's one judge, one family rule, NRS 3.025(3), and EDCR 5.42 (repealed Jan.”
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.