Aseltine v. Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada
Nevada Supreme Court
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
- Dickey v. DickeyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1928
- Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Village Mills Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1922
- Ruge v. RugeWashington Supreme Court · 1917
- Warren v. WarrenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
- Sweeney v. SweeneyNevada Supreme Court · 1919
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Lynn v. LynnNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
- Helvering v. FullerSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- University of Nevada v. TarkanianNevada Supreme Court · 1994
- University & Cmty. Coll. Sys. v. SuttonNevada Supreme Court · 2004
- Ormachea v. OrmacheaNevada Supreme Court · 1950
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.