Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Arnold v. Knettle, 460 P.2d 45.
- In RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO V.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-
In RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO V.M.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
rovide reasonable support and to 6 “It is the general rule that when there is a change of law by judicial decision between the time of trial and the time of appeal the appellate court will dispose of the case according to the law prevailing at the time of the appellate disposition and not according to the law prevailing at the time of rendition of the judgment appealed.” ¶ 11 (App. 2022) (“Any change in the law, whether procedural or substantive, applies to cases on direct review, even if the de
- Furst v. Mayne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Furst v. Mayne
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(recognizing that we are obliged to "affirm where any reasonable view of the facts and law might support the judgment of the trial court"); (noting that we must affirm "if the trial court was correct in its ruling for any reason").
- State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
- Ranburger v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 760 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
-
Ranburger v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
760 P.2d 547
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
197 , 78 L.Ed.2d 172 (1983); , , Garcia v. City of Tucson, 1 Ariz.App.
- Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
- Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
- State v. De Passquallo 681 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- State v. De Passquallo 681 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- Bischofshausen v. Pinal-Gila Counties Air Quality Control District 673 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- Bischofshausen v. Pinal-Gila Counties Air Quality Control District 673 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- State v. LeMaster 669 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- State v. LeMaster 669 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- State v. Young 661 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- State v. Young 661 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- Budreau v. Budreau 658 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
- Budreau v. Budreau 658 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
- Juniel v. Juniel 623 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
-
Juniel v. Juniel
623 P.2d 848
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
(change of law during appeal); , (applying New Jersey law).
- State v. Junkin 599 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- State v. Junkin 599 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- Kelly v. Perry 531 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1975
- Riffle v. Robert L. Parker Company 505 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
- Riffle v. Robert L. Parker Company 505 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
- National Car Rental v. Fox 500 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
- National Car Rental v. Fox 500 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
- Ruth v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1971
-
Ruth v. Industrial Commission
490 P.2d 828
Ariz. 1971
Co. v. Employment Security Comm’n.
- Roseland v. City of Phoenix 481 P.2d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
-
Roseland v. City of Phoenix
481 P.2d 288
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
held that where a United States Supreme Court decision came out after the trial in Superior Court and even after the filing of the briefs in the appellate court, which Supreme Court decision declared a garnishment statute similar to the garnishment statute in the State of Arizona and which was in
- City of Tucson v. Morgan 475 P.2d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
- City of Tucson v. Morgan 475 P.2d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
- Andrew Brown Company v. Painters Warehouse, Inc. 466 P.2d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
- Andrew Brown Company v. Painters Warehouse, Inc. 466 P.2d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970