Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Owen v. Blackhawk, 79 P.3d 667.

176 citing documents.

Martinez v. Gutierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Martinez v. Gutierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Uthe v. Uthe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Uthe v. Uthe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Campbell v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Campbell v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Bella P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Bella P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 11, (a change in physical custody determination is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).
Manola v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Manola v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Artemchuk v. Chernysh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Artemchuk v. Chernysh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 25–408(G), (I); –21 ¶¶ 8–12, –70 (App. 2003).
Simon v. Simon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Simon v. Simon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Prescott v. Prescott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Prescott v. Prescott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 7, (custody); (parenting time).
Quigley v. Quigley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Quigley v. Quigley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
–22, ¶ 12 (App. 2003) (due to court’s failure to explain its consideration of relevant statutory factors, remand was proper because it 1 Although the court asked the parties at trial whether they agreed with summarized portions of the report, that record is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate revi
Thompson v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Thompson v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 7 (App. 2011) (spousal support) (); ¶ 10 (App. 2015) (parenting time) ( ¶ 7 (App. 2003)); ¶ 8 (App. 2007) (child support) ( ¶ 5 (1999)).
Wootton v. Blair Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Wootton v. Blair Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“To change a previous [parenting time] order, the court must determine whether there has been a material change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child.” ¶16 (App. 2003) (citation omitted).
Murray v. Murray 367 P.3d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Murray v. Murray 367 P.3d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Johnson v. Provoyeur Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Johnson v. Provoyeur Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- 22, ¶ 12 (App. 2003) (holding that in view of court’s failure to explain its consideration of relevant § 25-408 factors, reversal and remand was necessary because it was unclear whether court focused too much attention on one factor to the exclusion of others).
Johnson v. Boatley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Johnson v. Boatley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Toth v. Brower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Toth v. Brower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lockhart v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lockhart v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Nicholas v. Nicholas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Nicholas v. Nicholas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 8 (App. 2009); ¶ 7 (App. 2003).
Zimmerman v. Zimmerman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Zimmerman v. Zimmerman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
2 ZIMMERMAN v. ZIMMERMAN Decision of the Court DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review ¶4 “‘We review the [family] court’s decision regarding child custody for an abuse of discretion.’” ¶ 11, ( ¶ 7, ) (alterations in Hurd).
Delancy v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Delancy v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
5 DELANCY v. WRIGHT Decision of the Court 418, ¶ 7
Chandler v. Ellington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Chandler v. Ellington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Miller v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Miller v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
MILLER v. MILLER Decision of the Court does the court reach the question of whether a change in custody would be in the child's best interest.” Pridgeon v. Superior Court (LaMarca), (citations omitted); ¶ 15, (same); ¶ 11, (holding a substantial change in joint physical custody constitutes a change in custody requiring § 25-403 findings).
Baker v. Meyer 346 P.3d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Baker v. Meyer 346 P.3d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
We review an order modifying parenting time for an abuse of discretion, but questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo, (applying de novo review “regarding the interpretation of statutes and decrees of dissolution”).
Jordan v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jordan v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hurd, 223 Ariz. at 52, ¶ 20, 219 P.3d at 263; –22, ¶¶ 8, 12, –71 (App. 2003) (requiring the family court to explain how it weighed the relocation factors).
Eastman v. Eastman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Eastman v. Eastman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Strovink v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Strovink v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014