NRS
3.223 Jurisdiction of family courts.
1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 125E.270, in each judicial district
in which it is established, the family court has original, exclusive jurisdiction
in any proceeding:
(a) Brought pursuant to title 5 of NRS or chapter 31A, 123,
125, 125A, 125B, 125C, 126, 127A, 127B, 127C, 127D, 127E, 128, 129, 130, 159A, 425 or 432B of
NRS, except to the extent that a specific statute authorizes the use of any
other judicial or administrative procedure to facilitate the collection of an
obligation for support.
(b) Brought pursuant to NRS 442.255 and 442.2555 to request the court to issue an
order authorizing an abortion.
(c) For judicial approval of the marriage of a
minor.
(d) Otherwise within the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court.
(e) To establish the date of birth, place of
birth or parentage of a minor.
(f) To change the name of a minor.
(g) For a judicial declaration of the sanity of a
minor.
(h) To approve the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining
procedures from a person as authorized by law.
(i) Brought pursuant to NRS 433A.200 to 433A.330, inclusive, for an involuntary
court-ordered admission to a mental health facility.
(j) Brought pursuant to NRS 433A.335 to 433A.345, inclusive, to require a person
to receive assisted outpatient treatment.
(k) Brought pursuant to NRS 441A.505 to 441A.720, inclusive, for an involuntary
court-ordered isolation or quarantine.
2. The family court, where established
and, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (m) of subsection 1 of NRS 4.370, the justice court have
concurrent jurisdiction over actions for the issuance of a temporary or
extended order for protection against domestic violence.
3. The family court, where established,
and the district court have concurrent jurisdiction over any action for damages
brought pursuant to NRS 41.134 by a
person who suffered injury as the proximate result of an act that constitutes
domestic violence.
(Added to NRS by 1991,
2175; A 1993,
545; 1995,
783; 1997,
1804, 2267;
1999,
486; 2003,
1114, 2207;
2005,
506; 2011,
2513; 2017,
887; 2021,
3103; 2023,
2256; 2025,
1552)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
29
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case:
Landreth v. Malik, 251 P.3d 163 (Nev. 2011).
Landreth v. Malik, 251 P.3d 163 (Nev. 2011).
· cites it 58× “Pursuant to the Constitution's grant of this authority, the Legislature established a family court division in the Second and Eighth Judicial Districts and limited the family courts' jurisdiction to matters specifically enumerated in NRS 3.223. However, all judges in the family…”
Landreth v. Malik, 221 P.3d 1265 (Nev. 2009).
· cites it 29× “Acting pursuant to this grant of constitutional authority, the Legislature validly limited the family courts' jurisdiction to the matters specifically enumerated in NRS 3.223. This case involves an unmarried, childless couple, who used to live together and now dispute the…”
Mainor v. Nault, 101 P.3d 308 (Nev. 2004).
· cites it 3× “” The 1993 version of NRS 3.223 provided, in relevant part, that: 1.”
Pearson v. Pearson, 871 P.2d 343 (Nev. 1994).
· cites it 2× “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.”
In Re: Discipline of Christopher R. Arabia, 2021 NV 59 (Nev. 2021).
· cites it 2× “See also NRS 3.223(1) (affording the family court "original, exclusive jurisdiction" over certain identified proceedings); NRS 7.”
Barelli v. Barelli, 944 P.2d 246 (Nev. 1997).
· cites it 2× “NRS 3.223(1)(a). While the grant of jurisdiction to the family court in the above listed matters is exclusive, we do not believe that the legislature intended to prohibit the family court from adjudicating matters related to its jurisdictional authority.”
Amaya v. Guerrero Rivera, 444 P.3d 450 (Nev. 2019).
“Garner , Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 107-11 (2012) (addressing the negative-implication canon); cf NRS 3.223 (specifically providing that the family court has jurisdiction over proceedings brought under NRS Chapter 125C, in addition to 125, 159A, 432B, and…”
Turnipseed v. Truckee-Carson Irrigation Dist., 13 P.3d 395 (Nev. 2000).
“See NRS 3.223, 4.370, 5.050. In contrast, the Nevada statutes defining the courts of this state do not define the Engineer or any other administrative agency as a lower court.”
City of Las Vegas v. Las Vegas Mun. Court, 879 P.2d 739 (Nev. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Riccio challenges this reasoning by contending that NRS 3.223(2) grants concurrent but exclusive jurisdiction over TPOs to the district court and the justice’s court.”
Klabacka Vs. Nelson c/w 66772, 2017 NV 24 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 6× “Whether a family court has subject- matter jurisdiction in divorce proceedings involving issues outside the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 10 (0) 1947A scope of NRS 3.223 3 has been firmly decided by this court.”
In Re: Guardianship of T.T.H. & T.A.H. (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 5× “A district court judge sitting outside the family court division may hear matters that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the family court On appeal, the Sells argue that assigning their case from family court to district court "was an impermissible overreach of the Chief…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.223(1) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.223(1)(a) — 7 cases
Barelli v. Barelli, 944 P.2d 246 (Nev. 1997).
“NRS 3.223(1)(a). While the grant of jurisdiction to the family court in the above listed matters is exclusive, we do not believe that the legislature intended to prohibit the family court from adjudicating matters related to its jurisdictional authority.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.223(2) — 1 case
City of Las Vegas v. Las Vegas Mun. Court, 879 P.2d 739 (Nev. 1994).
“Riccio challenges this reasoning by contending that NRS 3.223(2) grants concurrent but exclusive jurisdiction over TPOs to the district court and the justice’s court.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.223(a) — 3 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.223(b) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.223(l)(a) — 1 case
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.