Cited by

5 STATE v. STONER Decision of the Court ¶16 “[J]urisdiction is established at the time of filing of the lawsuit and cannot be ousted by subsequent actions or events.” ¶ 10 (App. 2006) (citation omitted).

¶ 11 (2017); ¶ 7 (App. 2006).

Warne Invs., ¶ 33 (App. 2008) (Rule 59 motion for new trial); ¶ 7 (App. 2006) (Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment); Takieh v. O’Meara, ¶ 34 (App. 2021) (Rule 37 motion for sanctions).

¶¶ 10–12 (App. 2006) (rejecting argument that parents’ marriage divested court of jurisdiction to hear grandparent visitation issue when the court had jurisdiction before marriage at the time of filing).

-73, ¶ 9 (App. 2006) (“For a statute to divest the superior court of jurisdiction, even in the broader sense of authority to act, the legislature must declare its intent to create divestiture ‘explicitly and clearly.’” (citation omitted)).

¶14 We review de novo whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction, ¶ 6 (App. 2006), but we will affirm a court’s finding of domicile if the finding is supported by sufficient evidence.

¶4 At a hearing on Appellant’s petition, Father advised the court that he and Mother were legally married on December 2, 2015, and made an oral motion to dismiss Appellant’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.4 The court denied Father’s motion, P.3d 1197 (App. 2006) and stating that “the trial court has jurisdiction to consider a visitation petition filed when the parents were not married even if the parents subsequently wed.”5 The court later set the matter for trial.

-73, ¶¶ 8-12 (App. 2006) (holding that marriage of parents of child born out of wedlock did not divest court of jurisdiction under § 25-409 to consider grandparents’ pending petition for visitation because, inter alia, “‘jurisdiction is established at the time of filing of the lawsuit and cannot be ousted by subseq

(“The superior court correctly denied this portion of the Rule 60 motion as time-barred because Mother did not file the motion within six months from the court’s last order .

Three types of jurisdiction exist: "[sjubject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and jurisdiction to render a particular judgment.” , 72 n. 2, ¶ 9, , 1199 n. 2 (App.2006) ( , ).

the legislature must declare its intent to create divestiture ‘explicitly and clearly.’” -73, ¶ 9 , -1200 (App.2006) (citations omitted) (stating that where the statutory scheme does not state that superior court will lose authority, legislature did not intend divestiture).

(holding that, because a motion to set aside a default judgment was not made until over eight months after the entry of such judgment, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter any order thereon except to deny the motion); ¶ 13 , (“The superior court correctly denied this portion of the Rule 60 motion as time-barred because Mother did not file the motion within six months from the court’s last order granting grandparent visitation.”).

(subject matter “[j]urisdiction depends upon the state of affairs existing at the time it is invoked, and once having attached is not lost by subsequent events”) (citation omitted); (jurisdiction established when lawsuit filed and cannot be lost as result of later events or actions).