DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Marriage of Leathers v. Leathers, 166 P.3d 929.

122 citing documents.

  • Taylor v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Taylor v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Prouty v. Hughes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Prouty v. Hughes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 19 (App. 2007) (holding that issues not raised in the pretrial statement are waived).
  • Downum v. Downum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Downum v. Downum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Although a lifetime award of spousal maintenance may be appropriate in some circumstances, see, ¶ 12 (App. 2007), the superior court has substantial discretion in determining the duration of spousal maintenance
  • Krenzen v. Katz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Krenzen v. Katz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    In her pretrial statement, Wife alleged (i) the 401(k) was worth $145,037.47, (ii) the community’s interest was $115,082.77, and (iii) she was entitled to receive $57,541.39.3 ¶ 19 (App. 2007) (explaining that the pretrial statement controls the course of the litigation).
  • Vahidi v. Hosseini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Vahidi v. Hosseini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Lacy v. Lacy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Lacy v. Lacy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Ervin v. Mills Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Ervin v. Mills Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 19 (App. 2007) (citation omitted).
  • Wellman v. Waits Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Wellman v. Waits Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 19 (App. 2007) (“The pretrial statement controls the subsequent course of the litigation.” ()).
  • Marinello v. Glover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Marinello v. Glover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    “The pretrial statement controls the subsequent course of the litigation.” ¶ 19 (App. 2007) ().
  • Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Lamb v. Nielsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Lamb v. Nielsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ANALYSIS I. Standard of Review ¶16 We will affirm if reasonable evidence supports the family court’s decision, ¶ 9 (App. 2007), and will not substitute our opinion for that of the family court unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion, (App. 1984).
  • In re the Marriage of Friedman 397 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • In re the Marriage of Friedman 397 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • Jares v. Hartman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Jares v. Hartman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶19 (App. 2007) (“The pretrial statement controls the subsequent course of the litigation.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)); ¶20 (App. 2013) (deciding where separate pretrial statements are filed, trial court can rule on an issue so long as it is presented i
  • Bachrach v. Bachrach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Bachrach v. Bachrach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    “We review an award of spousal maintenance under an abuse of discretion standard.” ¶ 9
  • In re Marriage of Peck 395 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • In re Marriage of Peck 395 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • Bobrow v. Bobrow 391 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Bobrow v. Bobrow 391 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    “The pretrial statement controls the subsequent course of the litigation,” ¶ 19 , (quotation omitted), and is intended to avoid unfair surprise at trial, , 356
  • Arora v. Arora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Arora v. Arora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Sherman v. Sherman 384 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Sherman v. Sherman 384 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Loya v. Loya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Loya v. Loya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Bryan, 178 Ariz. at 477; Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ¶ 5 (App. 2003).3 ¶7 "The pretrial statement controls the subsequent course of the litigation," ¶ 19 (App. 2007) (quotation omitted), and is intended to avoid unfair surprise at trial, ("[T]rial by ambush is a tactic no longer countenanced in Arizona courts.").
  • Fuller v. Fuller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Fuller v. Fuller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the ruling and will “affirm if there is any reasonable evidence to support it.” ¶ 9
  • Senter v. Senter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Senter v. Senter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶15 Preliminarily, ¶ 19 (App. 2007), he was not required to disclose evidence of the bonus incentive program because “[t]he pretrial statement controls the subsequent course of the litigation[,]” and he did not learn of the program until after the joint pretrial statement was filed.
  • Zwar v. Swain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Zwar v. Swain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶13 Burl further argues that the trial court’s P.3d 929 (App. 2007).
  • 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 i
  • Cordova v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Cordova v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • 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 i