October 28, 2025, Oral Arguments
Stumbo vs. Symmes Stumbo (Child Custody)
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Court of Appeals
Bright vs. ADT Sec. Serv., Inc. (Civil)
Las Vegas – 11:00 a.m. – Court of Appeals
In RE: Guardianship of A.L.R.-Q, A.R.W. and A.M.W. (Child Custody)
Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Court of Appeals
Stumbo vs. Symmes Stumbo (Child Custody)
Docket No. 89614-COA
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Court of Appeals
This is an appeal from a district court decree of divorce awarding respondent primary physical custody of minor children and order granting relocation from Las Vegas to New Jersey. The main issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion and/or infringed on appellant’s due process rights when it denied appellant’s motion to continue trial in order to allow appellant’s relocation expert adequate time to investigate and prepare a report and unduly limited the expert’s testimony at trial before granting custody and relocation.
Bright vs. ADT Sec. Serv., Inc. (Civil)
Docket No. 89262-COA
Las Vegas – 11:00 a.m. – Court of Appeals
This is an appeal from a district court order denying a petition for judicial review in a workers’ compensation matter where appellant fell asleep while driving a car owned by his employer during working hours, resulting in an accident. The main issue on appeal is whether the street-risk rule or mixed-use analysis applies such that the appeals officer and district court erred in concluding that appellant failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his claim was a compensable workers’ compensation claim.
In RE: Guardianship of A.L.R.-Q, A.R.W. and A.M.W. (Child Custody)
Docket No. 89623-COA
Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Court of Appeals
Kelly and Edward Ruckle appeal from a district court order terminating their guardianship over their granddaughters. The appellants argue that the termination of the guardianship violated their procedural due process rights because they were not provided adequate notice that their guardianship could be terminated and they were not given a meaningful opportunity to be heard regarding the same. Appellants also argue that the district court’s order terminating the guardianship is legally insufficient for failing to apply the correct burden of proof and by failing to address certain factors required by law.