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 Bell-Kilbourn v. Bell-Kilbourn, 169 P.3d 111.

170 citing documents.

  • Femiano v. Maust 463 P.3d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Femiano v. Maust 463 P.3d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Ortiz v. Diejuez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Ortiz v. Diejuez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Menghini v. Menghini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Menghini v. Menghini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    “Property takes its character as separate or community at the time of acquisition and retains that character throughout the marriage.” Schickner, 237 Ariz. at 199, ¶ 22 ( ¶ 5 (App. 2007)).
  • Ignatova v. Ignatov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Ignatova v. Ignatov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Bell–Kilbourn v. Bell–Kilbourn, ¶ 4 (App. 2007).
  • Alcott v. Killebrew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Alcott v. Killebrew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Specifically, the court found that although Father had stated he planned to live in Flagstaff for a “‘couple months,’ he continue[d] to live in Flagstaff at the time of the [evidentiary] hearing and ha[d] now been living there for the past six months.” 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the family court’s ruling.” ¶ 1 n.1 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 2 (App. 2005)).
  • Imatdinov v. Imatdinov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Imatdinov v. Imatdinov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Sawalqah v. Sawalqah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Sawalqah v. Sawalqah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    The purpose of § 25-324 is to “provide a remedy for the party least able to pay.” ¶ 13 (App. 2007) (citation omitted).
  • Pacheco v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Pacheco v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    The day before trial, Mother filed a separate pretrial statement that was 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the family court’s ruling.” ¶ 1 n.1 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 2 (App. 2005)).
  • Fiori v. Lanini-Fiori Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Fiori v. Lanini-Fiori Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    § 25-403.03.2 The court ordered both parties to undergo weekly random alcohol testing, appointed a best-interests 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the family court’s ruling.” ¶ 1 n.1 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 2 (App. 2005)).
  • Ridley v. Ridley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Ridley v. Ridley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • El-Sharkawy v. El-Sharkawy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • El-Sharkawy v. El-Sharkawy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    In calculating these sums, the court included Husband’s earnings as a part-time adjunct professor at Maricopa Community Colleges (MCC) in addition to his regular, full-time earnings 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the family court’s ruling.” n.1, ¶ 1 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 2 (App. 2005)).
  • Torres v. Miramontes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Torres v. Miramontes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 4 (App. 2007); ¶ 15 (App. 2000).
  • Young v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Young v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 4 (App. 2007) (property); Sherman, 241 Ariz. at 114, ¶ 17 (maintenance).
  • Phillips v. Cabrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Phillips v. Cabrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Phillips did not provide any 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the family court’s ruling.” n.1, ¶ 1 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 2 (App. 2005)).
  • Bangiyev v. Arzumanova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Bangiyev v. Arzumanova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Schickner v. Schickner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Schickner v. Schickner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Razdan v. Razdan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Razdan v. Razdan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    n.1, ¶ 1 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 2 (App. 2005)).
  • Evers v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Evers v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    n.1, ¶ 1 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 2 (App. 2005)).
  • Marriage of Henderson v. Henderson 390 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • Marriage of Henderson v. Henderson 390 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
    n.1 , , 112 n.1 (App. 2007).
  • Knight v. Knight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Knight v. Knight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 22 (App. 2015) ( ¶ 4 (App. 2007)).
  • Sachs v. Sachs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Sachs v. Sachs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    § 25-324 is “to provide a remedy for the party least able to pay.” ¶ 13 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 20 (1999)).
  • Haddad v. Geegieh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Haddad v. Geegieh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    While the primary purpose of the statute is to “provide a remedy for the party least able to pay,” ¶ 13 (App. 2007), the court can award fees based on either factor, n.1, ¶ 8 (App. 2004) (citation omitted) (“[A]n applicant need not show both a financial disparity and an unreasonable opponent in order to qualify for consideration for an award” under A.R.S.
  • Simon v. Simon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Simon v. Simon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Calcagno v. Ainbinder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Calcagno v. Ainbinder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    n.1, ¶ 1 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 2 (App. 2005)).
  • In Re the Marriage of Foster 376 P.3d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • In Re the Marriage of Foster 376 P.3d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016