Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Burton, 66 P.3d 70.

178 citing documents.

State v. Castorena Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
v. Burton, ¶ 8 (App. 2003).
Jf v. Hon. como/cf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Jf v. Hon. como/cf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
v. Burton, ¶ 16 (App. 2003) (“An appellant is responsible for making certain that the record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for us to consider the issues raised on appeal.”).
Stevens-El v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Stevens-El v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
v. Burton, ¶ 8 (2003) ("[A]ny action on the part of a party except to object to personal jurisdiction that recognizes the case as in court will constitute a general appearance.").
Holloway v. Goodard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Holloway v. Goodard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
v. Burton, ¶ 14 (App. 2003).
Trinity Financial v. Mercier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Trinity Financial v. Mercier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
v. Burton, ¶ 14 (App. 2003).
Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
v. Burton, ¶ 16 (App. 2003).
Yurcaba, III v. Yurcaba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Yurcaba, III v. Yurcaba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
v. Burton, ¶ 14 (App. 2003) (citation omitted).
Aldana v. Aldana Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Aldana v. Aldana Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
v. Burton, ¶ 14 (App. 2003).
Langbehn v. Langbehn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Langbehn v. Langbehn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
v. Burton, ¶ 14 (App. 2003).
Solorzano v. Jensen 479 P.3d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Solorzano v. Jensen 479 P.3d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
v. Burton, ¶ 14 (App. 2003).
Burney v. Huntimer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Burney v. Huntimer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
v. Burton, ¶ 16 (App. 2003).
Lindgren v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Lindgren v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
v. Burton, ¶ 16 (App. 2003).
Cusick v. Gerth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Cusick v. Gerth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
v. Burton, ¶ 14 (App. 2003).
Hovannisian v. Hovannisian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Hovannisian v. Hovannisian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
v. Burton, ¶ 14 (App. 2003).
Kempton v. Chappell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Kempton v. Chappell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
v. Burton, ¶ 18 (App. 2003), and State ex rel.
Faries v. Faries, II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Faries v. Faries, II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
v. Burton, ¶ 16 (App. 2003) (citation omitted); see also ARCAP 11(c)(1)(A)-(B).
Letona v. Adoc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Letona v. Adoc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
v. Burton, ¶ 16 (App. 2003) (“An appellant is responsible for making certain that the record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for us to consider the issues raised on appeal.
Huver v. Huver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Huver v. Huver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Schecter v. Cassidy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Schecter v. Cassidy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
v. Burton, ¶ 14 (App. 2003) (citation omitted)
Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas 425 P.3d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas 425 P.3d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
v. Burton, ¶ 18 (App. 2003), the issue here is whether the superior court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the request for a contempt finding.
Rodney S. v. Dcs, M.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Yon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Yon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
v. Burton, ¶ 8 (App. 2003); and Austin v. State ex rel.
Rodney S. v. Dcs, M.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
v. Burton, ¶ 16 (App. 2003).
Lacy v. Lacy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Lacy v. Lacy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
v. Burton, ¶ 14 (App. 2003).
Boyilla v. Boyilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Boyilla v. Boyilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
v. Burton, ¶ 16 (App. 2003).
Bondy v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bondy v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
v. Burton, ¶ 16 (App. 2003).
State v. Ludwig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017