From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...
Hermanson v. Hermanson
Nevada Supreme Court
110 Nev. 1400, 887 P.2d 1241 (1994) (1994)
Facts
Cindy Hermanson (plaintiff) and David Hermanson (defendant) were married in California. At the time of the wedding Cindy was six months pregnant. Cindy claimed that she told David that the child was conceived with another man, and David conceded that Cindy never told him that he was the father. The child, James Hermanson, was born in California several months after the wedding. Thereafter, Cindy and David lived in California for approximately three years with Cindy moving in and out of David’s home, otherwise seeking refuge in battered-women’s shelters or staying with friends. After three years, Cindy and David separated and Cindy moved to Iowa with James, where they lived for approximately five years. After five years, Cindy and David attempted to reconcile, and Cindy and James moved to Nevada. After approximately one month, Cindy filed for divorce. The trial court ruled that David was James’s father, applying California law, which at the time of James’s birth applied a conclusive presumption that a child born to a cohabiting husband and wife was issue of the marriage. Accordingly, the trial court entered a decree granting David joint legal custody and visitation rights. Cindy appealed, arguing that James’s paternity should be determined by Nevada law.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 518,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
