Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Standage v. Standage, 711 P.2d 612.

44 citing documents.

Andaloro v. Andaloro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Andaloro v. Andaloro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
The superior court “is accorded great discretion in the apportionment of community assets.”
Sherman v. Sherman 384 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sherman v. Sherman 384 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“Where foreseeable circumstances exist that could fundamentally alter the ability of a spouse to provide for his or her reasonable needs, a nominal award of spousal maintenance is not improper”)
Chandler v. Ellington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Chandler v. Ellington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(recognizing the family court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses, and the appellate court gives deference to its determination), ¶ 8, Estate o
Russell Piccoli P.L.C. v. O'Donnell 344 P.3d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Russell Piccoli P.L.C. v. O'Donnell 344 P.3d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Appellants’ reliance on Williams v. Frisbee, 419 S.W.2d 99, 102 (Mo.1967), , is misplaced.
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See, -35, ¶ 17, -96 (App. 2001) (acknowledging “broad discretion accorded trial courts in ordering child support”) ( ).
Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
We defer to the superior court’s opportunity to judge the witnesses’ credibility and resolve conflicts in the evidence, -80, -19 (App. 1985) (citing Pima Cnty.
Vortex v. denkewicz/engelhard 334 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Vortex v. denkewicz/engelhard 334 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Myrick v. Maloney 333 P.3d 818 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Myrick v. Maloney 333 P.3d 818 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
995); (“‘Under § 25-324, the court’s sole consideration relates to the parties’ financial resources.’”), 744 4 MYRICK v. MALONEY Opinion of the Court P.2d 717, 723 (App. 1987); -78, -17 (App. 1985) (“The sole consideration for the awarding of attorney’s fees is the ‘financial resources’ of the parties.”).
Valento v. Valento 240 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Valento v. Valento 240 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 347, ¶ 13 , 972 P.2d at 680
LEVERAGED LAND COMPANY, LLC v. Hodges 232 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
LEVERAGED LAND COMPANY, LLC v. Hodges 232 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
-80 , -19 (App.1985) (credibility determinations made by trier of fact).
Loiselle v. COSAS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC 228 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Loiselle v. COSAS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC 228 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 30 “A basic axiom of corporate law is that a corporation will be treated as a separate entity unless there is sufficient reason to disregard the corporate form.”
In Re Marriage of Robinson and Thiel 35 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
In Re Marriage of Robinson and Thiel 35 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
§ 25-320 app. The court thus found “it fair and reasonable that [David] pay [eight percent] of any monies he receives upon the exercise of [his] stock options.” Given the provisions of § 17(a) and the broad discretion accorded trial courts in ordering child support, see Standage v. *335 Standage, , we agree with the California Court of Appeals in Marriage of Kerr that a percentage award “would be permissible, as long as the [trial] court sets a maximum amount that would not exceed the children’s
Burnette v. Bender 908 P.2d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Burnette v. Bender 908 P.2d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(“Admittedly, the obstreperous litgant should in some manner pay for his conduct, but not pursuant to A.R.S.
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See Gatecliff, , ; , Honeywell
Bank One, Arizona v. Rouse 887 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Bank One, Arizona v. Rouse 887 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Standage v. Jaburg & Wilk, P.C. 866 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Standage v. Jaburg & Wilk, P.C. 866 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
-81 , -20 (Ct.App.1985).
Herberman v. Bergstrom 816 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Herberman v. Bergstrom 816 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Leo Eisenberg & Co., Inc. v. Payson 785 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1989
Leo Eisenberg & Co., Inc. v. Payson 785 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1989
See, , Honeywell, Inc. v. Arnold Constr.
Standage v. Planned Investment Corp. 772 P.2d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Standage v. Planned Investment Corp. 772 P.2d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 746 P.2d 4 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 746 P.2d 4 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
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
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

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by