Legal Opinion

Aseltine v. Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided December 3, 1936No. 3168PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

We contend that the judgment in question reserved jurisdiction for its modification, for the reason that the separation agreement settling the property rights of the parties was pleaded, adopted and made a part of the judgment. Dickey v. Dickey (Md.), 141 A. 387; Hogue v. Fanning (Cal.), 14 P. 560; Four Mile Land and Coal Co. v. Slusser (Ky.), 55 S.W. 555; Julier v. Julier (Ohio), 56 N.E. 661; Warren v. Warren (Minn.),133 N.W. 1009; Van Horn v. Van Horn, 188 N.Y.S. 98.

Consequently, district court rule XLV does not apply. Sweeney v. Sweeney, 42 Nev. 431, 179 P. 638; Lewis v. Lewis, 53 Nev.…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Dickey v. DickeyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1928
  2. Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Village Mills Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1922
  3. Ruge v. RugeWashington Supreme Court · 1917
  4. Warren v. WarrenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
  5. Sweeney v. SweeneyNevada Supreme Court · 1919

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Lynn v. LynnNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
  2. Helvering v. FullerSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  3. University of Nevada v. TarkanianNevada Supreme Court · 1994
  4. University & Cmty. Coll. Sys. v. SuttonNevada Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Ormachea v. OrmacheaNevada Supreme Court · 1950

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API