Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Spector v. Spector, 531 P.2d 176.

34 citing documents.

Soldwedel v. Soldwedel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Soldwedel v. Soldwedel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Kent v. Carter-Kent 332 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kent v. Carter-Kent 332 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
The fourth case, is discussed infra at paragraph 18.
Rueschenberg v. Rueschenberg 196 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Rueschenberg v. Rueschenberg 196 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
they belong to the owner of the property,” but if “profits come mainly from the efforts or skill of one or both [spouses], they belong to the community.”); -41 , -86 (1975) (holding that all of the profits from a separate business were separate property even though the “increase in value” was almost all due to the “increases in the value of Arizona real estate during the period” and making no effort to apportion between separate and community propert
In Re Marriage of Pownall 5 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Marriage of Pownall 5 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Schlaefer v. Financial Management Service, Inc. 996 P.2d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Schlaefer v. Financial Management Service, Inc. 996 P.2d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
§ 25-203 (Supp.1998); Elia, 194 Ariz. at 83, ¶ 46 , 977 P.2d at 805
Elia v. Pifer 977 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Elia v. Pifer 977 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Hrudka v. Hrudka 919 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hrudka v. Hrudka 919 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
§§ 25-201 to -205, must show by clear and convincing evidence, , that the agreement was fairly reached and that enforcement of the spousal maintenance provision will not “render one spouse without a means of reasonable support or a public charge, either because of a lack of property resources or a condition of unemployability.” Williams, 166 Ariz. a
Williams v. Williams 801 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Williams v. Williams 801 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Whitmore v. Mitchell 733 P.2d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Whitmore v. Mitchell 733 P.2d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Davis v. Davis 691 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Davis v. Davis 691 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Division One of our court *76 specifically approved the use of Rule 54(b) in a
Cooper v. Cooper 635 P.2d 850 Ariz. 1981
Cooper v. Cooper 635 P.2d 850 Ariz. 1981
Johnson v. Johnson 638 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Johnson v. Johnson 638 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Cockrill v. Cockrill 601 P.2d 1334 Ariz. 1979
Cockrill v. Cockrill 601 P.2d 1334 Ariz. 1979
See, e. g., , , In re Torrey’s Estate
Bender v. Bender 597 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Bender v. Bender 597 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
131 , and Santa Maria v. Santa Maria, 18 Ariz.App.
Nelson v. Nelson 560 P.2d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Nelson v. Nelson 560 P.2d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Noble v. Noble 546 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Noble v. Noble 546 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Everson v. Everson 537 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Everson v. Everson 537 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975