DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp, 163 P.3d 1024.

68 citing documents.

  • Shacknai v. Shacknai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Shacknai v. Shacknai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Further, although more recent AFIs are generally required, see, ¶¶ 38-39, (finding a three-year-old AFI for Wife and eight-month-old AFI for Husband were by themselves “inadequate” to support an award of fees), the family court needs only “competent” evidence to support an award of attorneys’ fees.
  • Tumlinson v. Tumlinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Tumlinson v. Tumlinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Valer C. Austin v. Josiah T. Austin 348 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • Valer C. Austin v. Josiah T. Austin 348 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • Mothersed v. Greenen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Mothersed v. Greenen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • MacLean v. Kappa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • MacLean v. Kappa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    –84, ¶ 37, –34 5 MACLEAN v. KAPPA Decision of the Court (App. 2007).
  • Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    parties to disclose information about the expert witnesses they expect to call at trial, including a writing detailing “the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify,” and “a summary of the grounds for each opinion.” The purpose of the pretrial disclosure rules is “to provide the parties ‘a reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial.’” n.5, n.5 (1994).
  • Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    See Orme Sch., 166 Ariz. at 309 , 802 P.2d at 1008 ; , 82 n. 5, ¶ 30, , 1032 n. 5 (App.2007) (concluding that the trial court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing when "sufficient evidence existed in the form of additional affidavits and previous evidence before the court”).
  • Chopin v. Chopin 232 P.3d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Chopin v. Chopin 232 P.3d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    -84, ¶ 37 , -34 (App.2007) (reversing trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs because it was not supported by adequate financial information in the record); ¶ 45 , (denying husband’s request for fees because he “provide[d] no i
  • 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
    ¶ 14 Finally, the court erred by disregarding the plain language of § 25~324(A) in considering only the financial resources of one party — the person who would be paying the attorney fees — rather than “the financial resources of both parties.” , (trial court abused discretion in awarding attorney fees in dissolution when record contained inadequate financial information of both parties).