Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Linton v. Linton, 499 P.2d 174.
- Hovda v. Hovda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Hovda v. Hovda
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(modification); ¶ 26 (App. 2011) (fees).
- Woodward v. Woodward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Woodward v. Woodward
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Id.; –64 (1972) (“The mere fact of reduction of income in and of itself is not a sufficient basis to justify modification of the decree.”); (change in income “becomes significant when the totality of the circumstances is considered”).
- McClendon v. McClendon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
McClendon v. McClendon
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“The burden of proving changed circumstances is on the party seeking modification.” ().
- Schlueter v. Haskell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Schlueter v. Haskell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Marriage of MacMillan v. Schwartz 250 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
- Marriage of MacMillan v. Schwartz 250 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
- Burnette v. Bender 908 P.2d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
-
Burnette v. Bender
908 P.2d 1086
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
As with the liquidation of [husband’s] pension plans, the fact that [wife] sold her own asset is not, in and of itself, a changed circumstance.” Id.; , (holding *305 that distribution to each party of trust assets resulted in “the manner of their holding the property changing] but this cannot be said to be a substantial change of circumstances” for modification of spousal maintenance).
- Van Dyke v. Steinle 902 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- Van Dyke v. Steinle 902 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- Snow v. Snow 745 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- Snow v. Snow 745 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- Reeves v. Reeves 706 P.2d 1238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
- Reeves v. Reeves 706 P.2d 1238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
- Chaney v. Chaney 699 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
-
Chaney v. Chaney
699 P.2d 398
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
It concluded, however, that because the parties knew at the time of the decree that he would be retiring in a few years and living off a reduced retirement income
- Fletcher v. Fletcher 671 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- Fletcher v. Fletcher 671 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- Marquez v. Marquez 647 P.2d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
- Marquez v. Marquez 647 P.2d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
- Jorgensen v. Jorgensen 640 P.2d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
-
Jorgensen v. Jorgensen
640 P.2d 202
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
overruled on other grounds
- 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
- Scott v. Scott 591 P.2d 980 Ariz. 1979
- Scott v. Scott 591 P.2d 980 Ariz. 1979
- Hornbaker v. Hornbaker 545 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- Hornbaker v. Hornbaker 545 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- Alford v. Alford 499 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
- Alford v. Alford 499 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972