DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Magee v. Magee, 81 P.3d 1048.

167 citing documents.

  • Senter v. Senter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 36 (App. 2011); ¶ 6 (App. 2004).
  • Solberg v. Solberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Solberg v. Solberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Thompson v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Thompson v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    11 ¶ 6 (App. 2004) ( ¶ 20 (App. 2001)).
  • Clark v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Burton-Anderson v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Clark v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Burton-Anderson v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Griffiths v. Heywood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Griffiths v. Heywood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • 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
  • Thompson v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Thompson v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 22, (recognizing this court must examine the parties’ financial resources and the reasonableness of their positions before awarding fees under § 25-324); ¶ 18, (“[R]elative financial disparity between the parties is the benchmark for 12 THOMPSON v. VAUGHN Decision of the Court eligibility.”).
  • Flynn v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Flynn v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    § 25-324 based on either a disparity in the parties’ financial resources or the reasonableness of the positions, n.1, ¶ 8 (App. 2004), the family court here did not specify the basis for its award.
  • Guislan v. Helmus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Guislan v. Helmus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 22, (recognizing this court must examine the parties’ financial resources and the reasonableness of their positions before awarding fees under § 25-324); ¶ 18, (“[R]elative financial disparity between the parties is the benchmark for eligibility.”).
  • Nicholas v. Nicholas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Nicholas v. Nicholas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Flynn v. Rodrick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Flynn v. Rodrick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    n.1, ¶ 8 (App. 2004) (stating that reasonableness of the parties’ positions and financial resources are two separate considerations, “and an applicant need not show both a financial disparity 2 Wife states in her answering brief that she also filed a notice of appeal.
  • Kotara v. Franco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Kotara v. Franco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    § 25-324 to require “that all a spouse need show is that a relative financial disparity in income and/or assets exists between the spouses.” ¶ 1 (App. 2004).
  • Shacknai v. Shacknai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Shacknai v. Shacknai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Swett v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Swett v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    -93, ¶¶ 17-18, - 52 (App. 2004).
  • Vogue v. Maleknia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Vogue v. Maleknia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    -93, ¶¶ 17-18, -52 (App. 2004).
  • Jacobson v. Jacobson-Boettcher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Jacobson v. Jacobson-Boettcher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    n.1, ¶ 8, n.1 (App. 2004) (stating that reasonableness of the parties’ positions and financial resources are two separate considerations, “and an applicant need not show both a financial disparity and an unreasonable opponent in order to qualify for consideration for an award”).
  • Shurts v. Shurts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Shurts v. Shurts 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
    ¶¶ 15-16, (“It is important to note .
  • Pachtman v. Pachtman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Pachtman v. Pachtman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    -93, ¶ 17, -52 (App. 2004).
  • Gazeley v. Larsen-Gazeley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Gazeley v. Larsen-Gazeley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Hanson v. Whetten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Hanson v. Whetten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    § 25-324(A) allows a trial court to award a party a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs upon consideration of “the financial resources of both parties and the reasonableness of the positions each party has taken throughout the proceedings.” To merit consideration for fees, a party must demonstrate “he or she is financially poorer than the other spouse.” ¶ 12, (emphasis in original).
  • Stewart v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Stewart v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶ 18, (holding that an applicant need not be unable to pay his or her own fees, but that relative financial disparity “is the benchmark for eligibility.”).
  • Rozenman v. Rozenman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Rozenman v. Rozenman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    n.1, ¶ 8, n.1 (App. 2004).
  • Nachiappan v. Subramanian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Nachiappan v. Subramanian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “[A]n applicant’s inability to pay his or her own attorneys’ fees is not a prerequisite to consideration for an award.” ¶ 18
  • Rinegar v. Rinegar 290 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012