Cited by

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

533 citing documents.

Demario v. Demario Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Munoz v. Munoz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Munoz v. Munoz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Uthe v. Uthe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Uthe v. Uthe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2 v. Rand 384 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2 v. Rand 384 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“An abuse of discretion exists when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.” ¶ 19 , (quoting State ex.
Campbell v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Campbell v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 12, (recognizing that a finding of “significant domestic violence” pursuant to § 13-3601 precludes an award of joint legal decision-making under § 25-403.03(A)).
Grubb v. Thraikill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Grubb v. Thraikill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“A family court abuses its discretion by making an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion, or making a discretionary ruling that the record does not support.” ¶ 8 (App. 2012) ( ¶ 8 (App. 2008), ¶ 19 (App. 2009)).
Manola v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Manola v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Senter v. Senter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Senter v. Senter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Artemchuk v. Chernysh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Artemchuk v. Chernysh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Escamilla v. Acuna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Prescott v. Prescott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Prescott v. Prescott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 13, Hurd, ¶ 16, (“Our duty on review does not include re-weighing conflicting evidence or re- determining the preponderance of the evidence.”).
Escamilla v. Acuna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shawn M. v. Dcs, X.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shawn M. v. Dcs, X.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
n.3 (App. 2009) (holding that the appellate court does not address issues not properly raised on appeal).
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
However, we “defer to the trial court’s determination of witnesses’ credibility and the weight to give conflicting evidence.” (“Even though conflicting evidence may exist, we affirm the trial court’s ruling if substantial evidence supports it.”).
Sharkey v. Sharkey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
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