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.

  • Rinegar v. Rinegar 290 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    ¶ 13 , (holding that fees may be awarded based on an income disparity regardless of poorer spouse’s ability to pay); ¶ 29 , (holding that a disparity in income supports a fee award even if the paying spouse di
  • In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    Further, “an award of fees can be appropriate simply because an income disparity exists, and it is not necessary to also inquire into whether the fee applicant is actually able to pay his or her own fees.”
  • Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    Further, “an award of fees can be appropriate simply because an income disparity exists, and it is not necessary to also inquire into whether the fee applicant is actually able to pay his or her own fees.”
  • Mangan v. Mangan 258 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Mangan v. Mangan 258 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    Nevertheless, "an applicant need not show both a financial -disparity and an unreasonable opponent in order to qualify for consideration for an award.” , 591 n. 1, ¶ 8, , 1050 n. 1 (App.2004) ( ¶¶ 27-29 , ).
  • Cardinal & Stachel, PC v. Curtiss 238 P.3d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • Cardinal & Stachel, PC v. Curtiss 238 P.3d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • In Re the Marriage of Williams 200 P.3d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • In Re the Marriage of Williams 200 P.3d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    Among such factors are the relative financial disparity between the parties, the ability of the parties to pay the fees, the ratio of fees owed to assets owned, and “other similar matters.” ¶¶ 17-18 , -52 (App.2004).
  • Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    ¶ 45 , this court denied the husband’s request for fees because “he provide[d] no information about the financial resources of either party nor d[id] he provide evidence supporting his claim for fees.” ¶ 17 , we stated that “the court is obligated to consider factors such as the degree of the resource disparity between the parties, the ratio of the fees owed to the assets and/or income of each party, and other similar matters” when making an award.
  • COHEN v. FREY, Fka COHEN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • COHEN v. FREY, Fka COHEN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • Marriage of Birt v. Birt 96 P.3d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Marriage of Birt v. Birt 96 P.3d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    ¶¶ 13-14 , (requiring payment of fees by one spouse on behalf of other is derived from and justified by the duty of support); In re Matter of Catlow, 663 F.2d 960, 962-63 (9th Cir.1981) (awarding attorney’s fees in dissolution action was nondischargeable under prior bankruptcy code