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.

533 citing documents.

  • 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
  • Peace v. Peace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • McNeil v. Goff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • McNeil v. Goff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶ 16, (explaining that the trier of fact is in the best position to weigh the evidence); Brown v. U.S. Fid.
  • 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
    A family court abuses its discretion by making an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion, ¶ 8 , or making a discretionary ruling that the record does not support, ¶ 19
  • Mahar v. Acuna, II 287 P.3d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • Mahar v. Acuna, II 287 P.3d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    A court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion or “‘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.’” quoting State ex rel.