Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Marriage of Deatherage v. Deatherage, 681 P.2d 469.
-
Karl v. US Bank National Ass'n
308 P.3d 1173
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
“The legislature is presumed to express its meaning as clearly as possible and therefore words used in a statute are to be accorded their obvious and natural meaning.”
- Cullum v. Cullum 160 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
- Cullum v. Cullum 160 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
- Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- 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
Although courts may consider non-income producing property in determining whether a spouse has sufficient property to meet his or her needs, , a court need not require a spouse to exhaust a retirement account to support himself or herself.
- Crystal Point Joint Venture v. Arizona Department of Revenue 932 P.2d 1367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
-
Crystal Point Joint Venture v. Arizona Department of Revenue
932 P.2d 1367
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
§ 1-213 (“Words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved use of the language.”); , (statutory language to be given its natural and obvious meaning.).
- Little v. ALL PHOENIX S. COM. MENT. HLTH. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
- Little v. ALL PHOENIX S. COM. MENT. HLTH. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
- Kelsey v. Kelsey 918 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- Kelsey v. Kelsey 918 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- Little v. All Phoenix South Community Mental Health Center, Inc. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
-
Little v. All Phoenix South Community Mental Health Center, Inc.
919 P.2d 1368
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
“The legislature is presumed to express its meaning as clearly as possible and therefore words used in a statute are to be accorded their obvious and natural meaning.”
- 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
- State v. Johnson 827 P.2d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- State v. Johnson 827 P.2d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- Blute Profit Sharing Plan v. Terrazas 800 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- Blute Profit Sharing Plan v. Terrazas 800 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- Schroeder v. Schroeder 778 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1989
-
Schroeder v. Schroeder
778 P.2d 1212
Ariz. 1989
See, , (restricting maintenance only to situations where necessary).
- Dopadre v. Dopadre 749 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
- Dopadre v. Dopadre 749 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
- Rowe v. Rowe 744 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
- Rowe v. Rowe 744 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
- Thomas v. Thomas 690 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984