Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Marriage of Garrett v. Garrett, 683 P.2d 1166.

33 citing documents.

Amar Law v. Goodman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Amar Law v. Goodman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(citing cases) (noting, in that circumstance, the “attorney generally has a remedy only against the client for the value of his service”) (emphasis added); (citing authority) (addressing a claim where, unlike this case, the attorneys’ fee “is not fixed by an agreement between” the attorney and the client)
Porteous v. Francies Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Porteous v. Francies Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
§ 25-324 are intended to ‘[e]nsure that the poorer party has the proper means to litigate the action.’” Quijada, 246 Ariz. at 222, ¶ 17 (–70 (App. 1983)); see also Edsall v. Superior Court In & For Pima Cty., (noting that § 25-324 was designed to assure the poorer party a remedy).
Defrancesco v. Defrancesco 455 P.3d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Defrancesco v. Defrancesco 455 P.3d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-68 (App. 1983) (because contingent fee was not a "mere expectancy," it was community property to the extent "community labor contributed to" its acquisition).
Quijada v. Quijada 437 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Quijada v. Quijada 437 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 25- 324 are intended to “insure that the poorer party has the proper means to litigate the action, not to punish litigants.” -70 (App. 1983) ().
Beauchamp v. Gust Rosenfeld Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Beauchamp v. Gust Rosenfeld Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Bachrach v. Bachrach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bachrach v. Bachrach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶6 In a similar case, this court held “the attorney’s services performed 1 Wife argues Husband waived this objection because he did not file a motion for reconsideration or modification.
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
Instead, the order rejects Wife’s interpretation of the August 29, 2009 order, concludes that the August 29, 2009 order improperly ordered Law Firm to divide the TLP, P.2d 1166 (App. 1983).
Stageberg v. Stageberg 695 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Gerow v. Covill 960 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Marriage of Gerow v. Covill 960 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Little v. Superior Court 884 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Little v. Superior Court 884 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest v. Hassell 837 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest v. Hassell 837 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(contingent indebtedness claim of bank had value); , (“[An] attorney’s contingency fee contract is a valuable property right, though the contingency upon which it is based has not been fulfilled.”).
In Re the Marriage of Pacific 815 P.2d 7 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
In Re the Marriage of Pacific 815 P.2d 7 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Torrez 744 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Torrez 744 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Pangburn v. Pangburn 731 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Pangburn v. Pangburn 731 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Moreover, , Division One of this court held that an attorney’s contingency contract is a valuable property right though the contingency upon which it is based has not been fulfilled and may not be fulfilled in the future.
Mitchell v. Mitchell 732 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Mitchell v. Mitchell 732 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
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
Koelsch v. Koelsch 713 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Koelsch v. Koelsch 713 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984