DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hurd v. Hurd, 219 P.3d 258.

507 citing documents.

  • Sharkey v. Sharkey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Rivera v. Drake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Rivera v. Drake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Okubena v. Montag Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Okubena v. Montag Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 12, (holding family court cannot award joint legal decision-making by law if it finds significant domestic violence or a history of significant domestic violence).
  • Stephens v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Stephens v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    3 STEPHENS v. STEPHENS Decision of the Court 347, ¶ 13 (App. 1998); ¶ 16 (App. 2009).
  • Lockhart v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Lockhart v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Kimberlee K. v. Dcs, I.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Kimberlee K. v. Dcs, I.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 16, (“Our 4 KIMBERLEE K. v. DCS, I.K.
  • Flynn v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Flynn v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Because we do not reweigh evidence on appeal, we discern no error in the family court’s finding that Father’s alternative explanation “is more consistent with the evidence.” ¶ 16 (App. 2009).
  • Zimmerman v. Zimmerman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Zimmerman v. Zimmerman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    2 ZIMMERMAN v. ZIMMERMAN Decision of the Court DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review ¶4 “‘We review the [family] court’s decision regarding child custody for an abuse of discretion.’” ¶ 11, ( ¶ 7, ) (alterations in Hurd).
  • Vincent v. Nelson 357 P.3d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Vincent v. Nelson 357 P.3d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 19 (App. 2009) (citing Ariz. Dep’t of Econ Sec.
  • Kotara v. Franco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Kotara v. Franco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (noting that the appellate court’s “duty on review” does not include re-weighing conflicting evidence or re-determining preponderance of evidence).
  • Chapa v. Housman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Chapa v. Housman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    –52, ¶¶ 11, 16, –62 (App. 2009).
  • Chandler v. Ellington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Chandler v. Ellington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Nevertheless, our duty “does not include re- weighing conflicting evidence.” ¶ 16, (citation omitted); -48, ¶ 13, -81 (App. 1998) (deferring to the trial court’s determination of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight accorded to conflicting evidence); Hamilton v. Mun.
  • Merrick v. D. Hurley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Merrick v. D. Hurley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See ARCAP 13(a)(6), (7) (appellant's brief shall contain issues presented for review with argument); n.3, n.3 (App. 2009) (issues not raised properly on appeal waived).
  • Jordan v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Jordan v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Eastman v. Eastman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Criticized Eastman v. Eastman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 16, (appellate court’s duty “does not include re-weighing conflicting evidence” but does include affirming the decision if substantial evidentiary support exists)
  • Michael v. Michael Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Michael v. Michael Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Arballo v. Orona-Hardee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Arballo v. Orona-Hardee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    5 ARBALLO v. ORONA-HARDEE Decision of the Court Ariz. 48, 52 ¶ 16, see also Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
  • Lattimore v. Boyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Lattimore v. Boyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    We only review the court’s decision for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 11, and we do not reweigh conflicting evidence on appeal.
  • Vogue v. Maleknia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Vogue v. Maleknia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶ 16, accord Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 347-48, ¶ 13, 972 P.2d at 680-81
  • Strovink v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Pesetsky v. Pesetsky Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Pesetsky v. Pesetsky Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Strovink v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    However, this court’s “duty on review does not include re-weighing conflicting evidence.” ¶ 16
  • Shifflett v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Shifflett v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶ 16, see also Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ.
  • Manola v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Manola v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Christopher K., 233 Ariz. at 301, ¶ 18, 311 P.3d at 1114; Nold, 232 Ariz. at 273, ¶ 11, 304 P.3d at 1096; ¶ 11
  • Dean v. Culp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Dean v. Culp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Kang v. Kang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Kang v. Kang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Peace v. Peace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014