Barbagallo v. Barbagallo

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that, in 1987, when it enacted the child support formula, the Legislature declined to define primary physical custody according to a particular timeshare
• noting that, in 1987, when it enacted the child support formula, the Legislature declined to define primary physical custody according to a particular timeshare
• stating that where an increase in the formula is ordered, the deviation should be supported by written findings of fact and a statement of reasons
• noting that, in 1987, when it enacted the child support formula, the Legislature declined to define primary physical custody according to a particular timeshare, for example 40 percent of the time, or 146 days out of the year
• discussing primary custodians and custodial parents in the context of child support
• discussing primary custodians and custodial parents in the context of child support

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Rivero v. Rivero
  Nevada Supreme Court· 2009-08-27· cited 100×
• Wallace v. Wallace
  Nevada Supreme Court· 1996-08-16· cited 84×
• Love v. Love
  Nevada Supreme Court· 1998-05-19· cited 36×
• Wright v. Osburn
  Nevada Supreme Court· 1998-12-30· cited 22×
• Anastassatos v. Anastassatos
  Nevada Supreme Court· 1996-04-03· cited 12×
• Rodgers v. Rodgers
  Nevada Supreme Court· 1994-12-22· cited 8×
• Jackson v. Jackson
  Nevada Supreme Court· 1995-12-19· cited 7×
• Herz v. Gabler-Herz
  Nevada Supreme Court· 1991-03-28· cited 7×
• Wesley v. Foster
  Nevada Supreme Court· 2003-03-21· cited 7×
• Miller v. Miller
  Nevada Supreme Court· 2018-03-15· cited 2×
• Rivero v. Rivero
  Nevada Supreme Court· 2008-10-30
• MILLER VS. MILLER
  Nevada Supreme Court· 2018-03-15
• in the Interest of D.C., S.C., and S.C., Children
  Tex. App. Ct., 2nd Dist. (Fort Worth)· 2022-08-31