Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bailey v. Bailey, 412 P.2d 480.

46 citing documents.

Jf v. Hon. como/cf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Jf v. Hon. como/cf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(when asked to modify a custody decree, “[t]he primary consideration is the welfare of the child,” and “[t]he Court will look to the best interests of the child and not to the gratification of the parents.”).
Johnson v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Johnson v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
The court’s determination as to whether a change in circumstances has occurred “will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion, i.e., a clear absence of evidence to support its actions.” ( ).
Thornburg v. Thornburg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Thornburg v. Thornburg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
The court’s determination whether a change in circumstances has occurred “will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion, i.e., a clear absence of evidence to support its actions.” ( ); see also Vincent, 238 Ariz. at 155, ¶¶ 17-18.
Heroyan-Hamayak v. Hamayak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Heroyan-Hamayak v. Hamayak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(holding a trial court abuses its discretion where there is “a clear absence of evidence to support its actions”) ( ).
Mothersed v. Greenen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mothersed v. Greenen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
J.A.R. v. Superior Court 877 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
J.A.R. v. Superior Court 877 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
modified on other grounds, , , (child’s preference is important but not necessarily controlling in modifying child custody provisions of divorce decree).
Canty v. Canty 874 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Canty v. Canty 874 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
352, 355 , Cone v. Righetti -76
Pridgeon v. Superior Court 655 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1982
Pridgeon v. Superior Court 655 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1982
Lowther v. Hooker 632 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Lowther v. Hooker 632 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Anderson v. Anderson, 14 Ariz.App.
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-561 638 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-561 638 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Marce v. Bailey 636 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Marce v. Bailey 636 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Smith v. Smith 571 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Smith v. Smith 571 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Black v. Black 560 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1977
Black v. Black 560 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1977
We are not here faced with a , but implicit in that opinion is a recognition that the parties should be notified of the court’s actions.
Anderson v. Anderson 481 P.2d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Anderson v. Anderson 481 P.2d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Brown v. Brown 459 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Brown v. Brown 459 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Tibbetts v. Tibbetts 432 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Tibbetts v. Tibbetts 432 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Solomon v. Solomon 427 P.2d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Solomon v. Solomon 427 P.2d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Allison v. Ovens 421 P.2d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Allison v. Ovens 421 P.2d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
We do not say that if the record is overwhelming in favor of one decision that the in chambers conference alone will be sufficient to sustain a contrary finding for that problem is not before us. In this case, the reported evidence sustains the decision and we must assume that the decision is fortified and strengthened by the in chambers conference.”
Fenter v. Gruensfelder 422 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
In Re Anonymous 422 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
In Re Anonymous 422 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Fenter v. Gruensfelder 422 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Borg v. Borg, 3 Ariz.App.
Hoffman v. Hoffman 417 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Hoffman v. Hoffman 417 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Galbraith; Smith; Andro.”
Hutchison v. Hutchison 416 P.2d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Hutchison v. Hutchison 416 P.2d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Borg v. Borg 413 P.2d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Borg v. Borg 413 P.2d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Andro v. Andro, supra; Galbraith v. Galbraith, supra; Ward v. Ward, supra; , .