Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re the Marriage of Hinkston, 653 P.2d 49.

37 citing documents.

Hernandez v. Fabian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Hernandez v. Fabian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In doing so, we acknowledge that the superior court “is in the best position to properly tailor an award of spousal maintenance.”
Cleary v. Cordero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Cleary v. Cordero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Although the court has broad discretion in assessing the need for spousal maintenance, “there still must be some support in the record for the court’s determination.”
Bachrach v. Bachrach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bachrach v. Bachrach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Cordova v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cordova v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 22 (App. 2009) ( and ).
Ramsay v. WHEELER-RAMSAY 232 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ramsay v. WHEELER-RAMSAY 232 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
“[B]ecause the trial judge is in the best position to properly tailor an award of spousal maintenance, the trial court is given broad discretion to determine what is a reasonable amount.” , (citations omitted).
Pullen v. Pullen 222 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Pullen v. Pullen 222 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Hughes v. Hughes 869 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Hughes v. Hughes 869 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Under appropriate circumstances, a trial court has discretion to award maintenance until “death or remarriage.”
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
(trial court has discretion under appropriate circumstances to award spousal maintenance until “death or remarriage”).
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-05401 845 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Distinguished In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-05401 845 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See, -96 , -53 (App.1982) (lack of jurisdiction (power to act) is distinguishable from legal error (acting improperly)).
Hardin v. Hardin 788 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hardin v. Hardin 788 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
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
Ruskin v. Ruskin 738 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Ruskin v. Ruskin 738 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Gurr v. Willcutt 707 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Gurr v. Willcutt 707 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
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
McCarthy v. McCarthy 704 P.2d 1352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
McCarthy v. McCarthy 704 P.2d 1352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
In re *209 Marriage of Hinkston
Thomas v. Thomas 690 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Marriage of Deatherage v. Deatherage 681 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Marriage of Deatherage v. Deatherage 681 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Estes v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR MARICOPA 672 P.2d 180 Ariz. 1983
Estes v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR MARICOPA 672 P.2d 180 Ariz. 1983
Division One, in , read Honsey as "a classic example of the mischief that can arise when courts indiscriminately use the term jurisdiction (the power to act) when what is meant is legal error (the court acted improperly)."
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