Cited by

He says § 12-350 provides “a checklist of factors the court must consider,” and argues the court failed to specify his “efforts to seek a just and speedy end to litigation.” But again, the § 12-350 factors are permissive and “guide[] the court in making awards authorized by § 12-349.” ¶ 36 n.11 (App. 2002).

¶ 29 (App. 2002) (“Generally, a judge should not reconsider a motion already decided by another superior court judge unless new circumstances are demonstrated.”) (citations omitted).

¶ 29 (App. 2002) (“[A] judge should not reconsider a motion already decided by another superior court judge unless new circumstances are demonstrated.”).

¶9 “Unless strong public policy exceptions require otherwise, the validity of [a] marriage is generally determined by the law of the place of marriage.” ¶ 12 (App. 2002); accord In re Mortenson’s Estate, (addressing first cousin marriage before amendments to A.R.S.

at 279; -86, ¶ 29 (App. 2002).

See, ¶ 29 (App. 2002) (“A horizontal appeal is a request that ‘a second trial judge [] reconsider the decision of the first trial judge in the same matter, even though no new circumstances have arisen in the interim and no other reason justifies reconsideration.’”) (alteration in original) (quoting Powell-Cerkoney v.

appealable order; thus, the law of the case doctrine is inapplicable except to the extent it encompasses the court’s decision to permit a horizontal appeal, which “is a request that a second trial judge reconsider the decision of the first trial judge in the same matter, even though no new circumstances have arisen in the interim and no other reason justifies reconsideration.” ¶ 29 (App. 2002) (quotation omitted); see Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, (“The policy against t

-82, ¶¶ 35-42 (App. 2006) (in reversing denial of motion to disqualify judge, court of appeals would also reverse rulings by judge subject to disqualification); ¶¶ 28- 31 (App. 2002) (reviewing “horizontal appeals” on direct appeal from judgment).

Similarly, reliance upon law of the case does not justify a court’s refusal to reconsider a ruling when an error in the first decision renders it “manifestly erroneous.” ¶ 29

§ 25-112(B) (1992);8 ¶ 19

hat the prior ruling was almost two years earlier and the decision to exclude the transcript was during jury selection.1 ¶10 “A horizontal appeal is a request that ‘a second trial judge [ ] reconsider the decision of the first trial judge in the same matter, even though no new circumstances have arisen in the interim and no other reason justifies reconsideration.’” - 86, ¶ 29 (App. 2002) (alteration in original) (quoting Powell–Cerkoney v. TCR–Mont.

-86, ¶ 29, -80 (App. 2002).

¶ 20 , Mauro next argues the probate court should have applied the law of Mexico to determine the validity of the marriage because he and Kathryn were domiciled in Mexico, and Mexico thus had the most significant relationship to the two of them and their marriage.