Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Thomas v. Thomas, 49 P.3d 306.

40 citing documents.

Merkley v. Merkley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Merkley v. Merkley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
In Re the Marriage of Rojas 530 P.3d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
In Re the Marriage of Rojas 530 P.3d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
“We review de novo the trial court’s interpretation of a decree of dissolution,” and its interpretation and application of the law
Hustrulid v. Stakebake 516 P.3d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Hustrulid v. Stakebake 516 P.3d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶¶ 17–18 (App. 2002).1 Although we interpreted an earlier version of § 25-409,2 that version, like the current statute, included a rebuttable presumption that awarding custody to a legal parent is in the child’s best interests.
In Re Joseph L. 493 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re Joseph L. 493 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 12 (App. 2007); ¶ 7 (App. 2002).
Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“Title 25 defines the boundaries of a dissolution court’s jurisdiction, and the court may not exceed its jurisdiction even when exercising its equitable powers.”); ¶ 6 (App. 2008); -36, ¶ 7 (App. 2002).
Amadore v. Lifgren 431 P.3d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Amadore v. Lifgren 431 P.3d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Procaccianti v. Shaffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Procaccianti v. Shaffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Calcagno v. Ainbinder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Calcagno v. Ainbinder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Tupper v. Tupper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Tupper v. Tupper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 7 (App. 2002) (citation omitted).
Roberto F. v. Department of Child Safety 332 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Roberto F. v. Department of Child Safety 332 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-36, ¶ 7 , -08 (App.2002); Murphy v. Bd.
Midtown v. Farmers 334 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Midtown v. Farmers 334 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano 323 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano 323 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Actions Nos. J-86384 & JS-2605, - 40, -06 (App. 1979), or, as the state suggests, by invited error or forfeiture
Helen Yu-Wen Chang v. Siu 323 P.3d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Helen Yu-Wen Chang v. Siu 323 P.3d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Egan v. Fridlund-Horne 211 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Egan v. Fridlund-Horne 211 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 4 Following briefing and argument, the superior court denied the motion to dismiss, relying in part on language from this court’s , in which we stated that a nonparent could seek visitation with the child of her former same-sex partner.
Tucson Botanical Gardens, Inc. v. Pima County 189 P.3d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Tucson Botanical Gardens, Inc. v. Pima County 189 P.3d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Thompson v. Thompson 176 P.3d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Thompson v. Thompson 176 P.3d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Sheehan v. Flower 170 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Sheehan v. Flower 170 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Downs v. Scheffler 80 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Downs v. Scheffler 80 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
§ 25-415(A); ¶ 16 , (“Subsection (A)(2) requires *500 that a petition by a non-legal parent be summarily dismissed unless the pleadings establish [the statutorily required elements].”).
State of Arizona v. Victor David Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Victor David Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003