DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lindsay v. Lindsay, 565 P.2d 199.

50 citing documents.

  • Taylor v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Taylor v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    See Hughes, 177 Ariz. at 525; see also Thomas, 142 Ariz. at 392 (noting that a long-term marriage and absence from the labor market combined with “the lack of a presently existing employment skill” weigh in favor of an indefinite award ()).
  • Marriage of Gutierrez v. Gutierrez 972 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Marriage of Gutierrez v. Gutierrez 972 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    overruled on other grounds, , the husband sold a community asset without the wife’s knowledge and lost the proceeds gambling.
  • Toth v. Toth 946 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1997
  • Rainwater v. Rainwater 869 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Rainwater v. Rainwater 869 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    sustaining, we have repeatedly cautioned that this goal “must be balanced with some realistic appraisal of the probabilities that the receiving spouse will in fact subsequently be able to support herself in some reasonable approximation of the standard of living established during the marriage.” , ( , overruled on other grounds in Schroeder)-, , (“the receiving spouse’s ability to earn income must be considered in light of some *504 reasonable approximation of the standard of living established
  • Schroeder v. Schroeder 778 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1989
  • Schroeder v. Schroeder 778 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1989
    *319 , Division One reviewed a decree awarding “the sum of Four Hundred ($400.00) Dollars per month for a period of three (3) years.” The court of appeals reversed the trial court for failing to include in the decree language explicitly giving the court jurisdiction to modify and extend the award i
  • Martin v. Martin 752 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1988
  • Martin v. Martin 752 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1988
    We denied appellant’s petition, but granted appellee’s
  • 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
    Division One of this court considered a decree of dissolution which found the wife was entitled to spousal maintenance “for a limited adjustment period,” and awarded $400 per month for three years.
  • Lincoln v. Lincoln 746 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • Lincoln v. Lincoln 746 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • Sample v. Sample 731 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Sample v. Sample 731 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Dooley v. Dooley 708 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Dooley v. Dooley 708 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Thomas v. Thomas 690 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Thomas v. Thomas 690 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Marriage of Miller v. Miller 683 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Marriage of Miller v. Miller 683 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • In Re Marriage of Berger 680 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • In Re Marriage of Berger 680 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Richards v. Richards 669 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Richards v. Richards 669 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • In Re the Marriage of Hinkston 653 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • In Re the Marriage of Hinkston 653 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    § 25-319; , Pettibone v. Pettibone, 22 Ariz.App.
  • Cooper v. Cooper 635 P.2d 850 Ariz. 1981
  • Cooper v. Cooper 635 P.2d 850 Ariz. 1981
  • Wisner v. Wisner 631 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • Wisner v. Wisner 631 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    Wife next argues that the court abused its discretion in failing to include in the spousal maintenance award a provision for future modification
  • McDermott v. McDermott 628 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • In Re Marriage of Foster 608 P.2d 785 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • In Re Marriage of Foster 608 P.2d 785 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    See, e. g. Hatch v. Hatch, supra, (unequal contribution of labors in acquiring community property insufficient); , (failure to award wife a share of the husband’s community retirement fund an abuse of discretion); , (failure to award wife any proceeds from the sale of a community airplane an abuse of discretion).
  • Mori v. Mori 603 P.2d 85 Ariz. 1979
  • Mori v. Mori 603 P.2d 85 Ariz. 1979
    -29 , -06 (App.1977) [referring to Porreca v. Porreca, 8 Ariz.App.
  • Kosidlo v. Kosidlo 607 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Kosidlo v. Kosidlo 607 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Buttram v. Buttram 596 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Buttram v. Buttram 596 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Raley v. Wilber 594 P.2d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Raley v. Wilber 594 P.2d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    conflicts with this conclusion.
  • Sommerfield v. Sommerfield 592 P.2d 771 Ariz. 1979
  • Sommerfield v. Sommerfield 592 P.2d 771 Ariz. 1979
    construed “support” as used by § 25-319(A) in a relative sense to “be interpreted in light of the preexisting circumstances of the parties involved.” To that end, the provisions of § 25-319(B), which outline factors a trial court should consider in determining the amount and durati
  • Baum v. Baum 584 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • Baum v. Baum 584 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • Provinzano v. Provinzano 570 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Provinzano v. Provinzano 570 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    (Arizona Supreme Court No. 13129-PR, filed July 22, 1977).