Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cullum v. Cullum, 160 P.3d 231.

151 citing documents.

Harris v. godaddy.com Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
n.9, ¶ 101, n.9 (2004); n.5, ¶ 14, n.5 (App. 2007) (holding that appellate courts “will not consider argument posited without authority”).
Vogue v. Maleknia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Vogue v. Maleknia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-55, ¶¶ 9, 13, -34 (App. 2007) (viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the wife and affirming the spousal maintenance award without requiring her to first “use up” her property); ¶ 14, (affirming lifetime spousa
KCI Restaurant Management LLC v. Holm Wright Hyde & Hays PLC 341 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
KCI Restaurant Management LLC v. Holm Wright Hyde & Hays PLC 341 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(declining to consider constitutional claims not first made to the trial court); n.5, ¶ 14, n.5 (App. 2007) (generally, issues raised for the first time on appeal are waived).
Shano v. Shano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Shano v. Shano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
She did not, however, raise this argument in a timely fashion in the superior court and has thus waived it for purposes of appeal.1 ¶ 14 n.5, n.5 (App. 2007) (party cannot argue on appeal legal issues not raised in trial court).
Helland v. Helland 337 P.3d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Helland v. Helland 337 P.3d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Robinson v. Hutchins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Dominguez v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Dominguez v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 15, (internal citation omitted).
Robinson v. Hutchins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Walsh v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Walsh v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 14, (division of community assets and liabilities); ¶ 9, (spousal maintenance).
Kang v. Kang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kang v. Kang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
We review the award of spousal maintenance for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 9, and, in doing so, view the evidence in the light most favorable to Mother, ¶ 14
Gazeley v. Larsen-Gazeley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Gazeley v. Larsen-Gazeley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Cohen v. Cohen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Cohen v. Cohen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 9, Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 348, ¶ 14, 972 P.2d at 681.
Nardelli v. Metropolitan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Nardelli v. Metropolitan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
ef in this Court, the Nardellis never argued the statutory rate of interest was anything other than ten percent or that MetLife lacked a liquidated claim before the mandate issued in Nardelli I. “We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal except under exceptional circumstances.” In re MH 2008-002659, ¶ 14 n.5, n.5 (App. 2007) (As a general rule, a party cannot argue on appeal legal issues not raised below.).
Mejia v. Mejia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mejia v. Mejia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
The court need not consider § 25-319(B) factors that do not apply, ¶ 15, but must consider any evidence presented on an applicable factor.
State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In Re Mh2013-001793 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In Re Mh2013-001793 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
n.5, ¶ 14, n.5 (App. 2007) (“We will not consider arguments posited without authority.”).
State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
At any rate, we do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, ¶ 9, or arguments posited without authority, n.5, ¶ 14, n.5 (App. 2007).
Cutter v. Cutter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Cutter v. Cutter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
n.5, ¶ 14, n.5 (App. 2007) (As a general rule, a party cannot argue on appeal legal issues not preserved below.).
Robbins v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 300 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Robbins v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 300 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Although we do not typically address legal arguments raised for the first time on appeal, , 355 n. 5, ¶ 14, , 234 n. 5 (App.2007) (citation omitted), we note that Robbins’ ineligibility was not based on a determination that he was an independent contractor versus a tribal employee.
Boyle v. Boyle 290 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Boyle v. Boyle 290 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Navajo Nation v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 284 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Navajo Nation v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 284 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
355 n. 5, ¶ 14, , 234 n. 5 (App.2007).
MOTZER Dba RLM DESIGNS v. ESCALANTE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
MOTZER Dba RLM DESIGNS v. ESCALANTE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In Re Esther Caplan Trust 265 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Bistrow v. Sova 265 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Bistrow v. Sova 265 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
355 n. 5, ¶ 14, (“As a general rule, a party cannot argue on appeal legal issues not raised below.”); see also Alano Club 12
In Re Esther Caplan Trust 265 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
355 n. 5, ¶ 14, ("As a general rule, a party cannot argue on appeal legal issues not raised below."); see also Alano Club 12
State v. Glassel 248 P.3d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Glassel 248 P.3d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
355 n. 5, ¶ 14, , 234 n. 5 (App.2007) (holding appellate courts "will not consider argument posited without authority.").
Ramsay v. WHEELER-RAMSAY 232 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ramsay v. WHEELER-RAMSAY 232 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Rogers v. Cota 219 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Rogers v. Cota 219 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
355 n. 5, ¶ 14, , 234 n.5 (App.2007); AR-CAP 13(a)(6).
Marriage of Leathers v. Leathers 166 P.3d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007