DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Melgar v. Campo, 161 P.3d 1269.

46 citing documents.

  • Lincoln v. McDaniel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Lincoln v. McDaniel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    With only limited exceptions, “the decision to discontinue exclusive, continuing jurisdiction belongs to the court exercising it, and no other.” ¶ 11 (App. 2007).
  • Morgan v. Morgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Morgan v. Morgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    ¶ 10 (App. 2007) (stating that the UCCJEA’s goal is to “allow[] the court that makes the original custody determination to retain exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over that order”) (citations omitted).
  • Tracy D. , Tarah D. v. Dcs, T.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Tracy D. , Tarah D. v. Dcs, T.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    § 25-1032(A)) (“Once a court with original jurisdiction issues an initial child custody order, the UCCJEA gives that court exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over all future custody determinations, subject to statutory exceptions.”); ¶ 11 (App. 2007) (recognizing that “[t]he rule of exclusive, continuing jurisdiction remains the jurisdictional lodestar until either the court that originated the order determines that the child’s connection with the state is too attenuated or that the child and pa
  • Ericka H., Terrance D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Ericka H., Terrance D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶ 10 (App. 2007) (explaining the UCCJEA’s purpose is to “address the issue of competing orders and duplicative jurisdiction”); see also Cleckner v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., ¶ 9 (App. 2019) (noting courts “seek to apply a sensible construction that avoids absurd results”).
  • Danko v. Danko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Danko v. Danko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Dcs v. Deshannon B., D.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Dcs v. Deshannon B., D.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    v. Grant, ¶ 5 (App. 2013) ( ¶ 6 (App. 2007)).
  • Monique B./donald B. v. Hon duncan/dcs 429 P.3d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Monique B./donald B. v. Hon duncan/dcs 429 P.3d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See Angel B., 234 Ariz. at 72 ¶ 8 (“Unless a statutory exception applies, courts in other states are prohibited from modifying an initial child custody order entered by a court with exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.”) (citations omitted); ¶ 11 (App. 2007) (“With certain exceptions, the decision to discontinue exclusive, continuing jurisdiction belongs to the court exercising it, and no other.”); see also A.R.S.
  • Greene v. Sawicki Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Greene v. Sawicki Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Decision of the Court ¶17 Section 25-1037(A) provides that “[a] court of this state that has jurisdiction under this chapter to make a child custody determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.” ¶ 11 (App. 2007) (holding that decision to relinquish exclusive, continuing jurisdiction generally belongs to court holding such).
  • Srery v. Hon hinz/srery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Srery v. Hon hinz/srery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    the decision to discontinue exclusive, continuing jurisdiction belongs to the court exercising it, and no other.” ¶ 11 (App. 2007).
  • Moran v. Moran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Moran v. Moran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 6 (App. 2007); ¶ 10 (App. 2014).
  • In Re the Marriage of Margain and Ruiz-Bours 372 P.3d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • In Re the Marriage of Margain and Ruiz-Bours 372 P.3d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • Swett v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Swett v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 6, Aztar Corp. v. U.S. Fire Ins.
  • Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Van Leeuwen v. Van Leeuwen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Van Leeuwen v. Van Leeuwen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Michelle M. v. Loren C., R.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Michelle M. v. Loren C., R.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See Angel B., 234 Ariz. at 74, ¶ 17, 316 P.3d at 1262; ¶ 15
  • Hope v. Hope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Hope v. Hope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Angel B. v. Vanessa J. 316 P.3d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Angel B. v. Vanessa J. 316 P.3d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Key purposes of the UCCJEA include “to create consistency in interstate child custody jurisdiction and enforcement proceedings.” ¶ 7
  • Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Grant 307 P.3d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Grant 307 P.3d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    to create consistency in interstate child custody jurisdiction and enforcement proceedings.” ¶ 7
  • 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
    605, 606-07, ¶¶ 7, 10, -71 (App. 2007); ¶ 29
  • Jared P. v. Glade T. 209 P.3d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Jared P. v. Glade T. 209 P.3d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • In Re Estate of Parker 177 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Dometri Investments, LLC v. Lind 177 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Dometri Investments, LLC v. Lind 177 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    Melgar v. Campo, 215 * ¶ 6 , see also Willie G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
  • In Re Estate of Parker 177 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    Melgar v. Campo, 215 * ¶ 6, see also Willie G. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ.
  • Hounshell v. White 202 P.3d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Hounshell v. White 202 P.3d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    “We review this matter de novo because it involves a matter of statutory interpretation.” ¶ 6 , see also Willie G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.