“Vegas is where you get married, Reno is where you get divorced,” as the saying goes in the US state of Nevada.

State law allowing some legal cases to be conducted more quickly and discreetly than elsewhere in the US means this relatively small city has served as the quiet backdrop to dramatic family fallout over a global media empire.

Rupert Murdoch and his family flew in from all over the world to determine how the empire would be divided among his children when the 93-year-old patriarch dies.

For six days, the city saw a seven-car convoy of black SUVs carry the media mogul and his family to the Washoe County Courthouse.

The succession battle, which concluded on Monday, was heard in private.

The court has given no indication on when a decision will come. When this does arrive, it will be unavailable to the public.

The senior Murdoch usually left the courthouse after lunchtime, while his four children stayed inside until nightfall – all keeping their lips sealed as they exited.

Whatever the outcome of the case, it will have far-reaching consequences extending beyond the family drama, shaping the trajectory of the world’s most influential conservative media company.

News Corp owns hundreds of newspapers and media outlets around the world.

The empire includes the right-leaning Fox News in the US, which gave Donald Trump a major platform in the run-up to the 2016 election, as well as widely-read newspapers like The Sun in the UK.

With limited media access, much of what is known about the case has emerged from the New York Times, which obtained copies of sealed court documents.

Mr Murdoch reportedly wants to give greater control of the empire to his eldest son Lachlan, who is said to be more politically aligned with him.

What stands in the way is an irrevocable trust set up during his second divorce, which will give Mr Murdoch’s four eldest children equal shares in the company when he dies.

The trust gives the family eight votes, which it can use to have a say on the board of News Corp and Fox News.

Mr Murdoch controls four, leaving each of his eldest children with one vote. His two younger children do not have any voting rights.

Under the current trust agreement, Mr Murdoch’s votes would be shared equally among the four eldest children after his death.

He is now reportedly attempting to change the terms of this £14.9bn ($19.9bn) trust to ensure Lachlan’s control, fearing that his other elder children – James, Elisabeth, and Prudence – would steer Fox News away from its conservative slant, which could have an impact on its profitability.

Nevada may seem like an odd backdrop for the Murdoch battle, given that the family does not have any obvious ties to the Silver State.

But the state provides one of the most confidential legal settings for matters including family trust disputes, as it allows cases to unfold behind closed doors.

It has a “close on demand” statute that allows parties involved in certain sensitive cases to request that court proceedings be sealed from public access, ensuring complete privacy.

Arash Sadat, a probate lawyer with experience in family trust matters, said such cases were often deeply personal and emotional.

“So it creates honestly the most contentious cases that you’ll see,” he said.

He told the BBC that estate planning is usually done in a way in which the trust could be changed by the family.

“Here what you have is an irrevocable trust that Rupert Murdoch is attempting to change… there’s a huge amount on the line,” he said.

In trying to protect their privacy, the Murdochs have had their security team scope out which entrance of the courthouse has the fewest reporters waiting outside.

The family does not want any potentially embarrassing family revelations to be made public in this small desert city. And it appears to have worked. At a tea shop around the corner from the courthouse, life continued as normal.

Lauren Whitenack and Sofia Haley, two schoolmates, were going over class notes when they overheard us ask the barista if she knew about the case.

“The Murdochs are here? Now?” they asked.

After hearing about the case, the two women said it sounded strange. “It’s such a high-stakes trial, and the fact that it’s being kept so secret is kind of shady,” Ms Whitenack said.

“It could have so much impact on our future and the future of the information that the public receives in this country.”

A few minutes later, a woman named Vikki, who asked to not be identified by her full name, walked into the shop with a few of her friends. She also couldn’t believe the future of Fox News was being argued a few minutes away.

“Secrecy. I don’t like that,” she said. “I think it’s really misleading people. And we’re just ripe with conspiracy theories [in our politics].”

The outcome of the case is also unlikely to be disclosed.

The probate commissioner overseeing the case will submit his recommendation to a local judge. The judge could take weeks or months to make a decision, which will be sealed and unavailable to the public.

The decision could not only create some awkward family dynamics – it could also shape news that is consumed by millions of people around the world.

All three women at the tea house agreed that they wouldn’t want to be at Christmas dinner with the Murdochs this year.

“It’s the classic ‘money screws up relationships’ sort of situation,” Ms Whitenack said.