Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Engel v. Landman, 212 P.3d 842.

142 citing documents.

Clark v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Clark v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Berry v. Decker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Berry v. Decker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 350 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 350 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See infra, ¶ 25; ¶ 21 , (“We draw our own legal conclusions from [the] facts found or implied in the judgment.”).
Milinovich v. Womack 343 P.3d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Milinovich v. Womack 343 P.3d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“The overarching purpose of the Guidelines is to establish a standard of support for children consistent with their needs and the ability of parents to pay, and to make child support awards consistent for persons in similar circumstances.” ¶ 38 , (internal quotation omitted).
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 38, (citing Little, 193 Ariz. at 522, ¶ 12, 975 P.2d at 112)).
Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. 342 P.3d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. 342 P.3d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In Re the Shaheen Trust 341 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
In Re the Shaheen Trust 341 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
App. P. 13 bar committee note (“Absent a cross-appeal, the appellate court may not alter the lower court’s judgment in a manner favorable to the appellee.”)
Swett v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Swett v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 45, Ramsey Air Meds, L.L.C. v. Cutter Aviation, Inc., ¶ 12
Pachtman v. Pachtman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Pachtman v. Pachtman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In Re the Marriage of Thorn 330 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
In Re the Marriage of Thorn 330 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
For instance, the initial appeal was premature because the notice of appeal had been filed while a motion for new trial was pending, but a timely supplemental notice of appeal conferred jurisdiction.
Rodriguez v. Steddom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rodriguez v. Steddom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶¶ 19-20, (finding no jurisdiction over appeal from a 1 To buttress her Rule 85(C) motion, Wife attached (1) records of the 2010 unpaid balances on two credit cards in her name; (2) a letter from a Polk County Attorney asserting that the Iowa farm land “was not a part of the
Sitton v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. 311 P.3d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Sitton v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. 311 P.3d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 15 n. 2, , 847 n. 2 (App.2009).
Baker v. Bradley 296 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Baker v. Bradley 296 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
See, ¶ 13 , Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 37 , -09, ¶¶ 11-14 , -47 (App.2009).
Williams v. Williams 264 P.3d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Williams v. Williams 264 P.3d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Arvizu, 183 Ariz. at 226-27 , 902 P.2d at 832-33 ; ¶ 19 , Dorman, 198 Ariz. at 300 , *166 ¶ 3, 9 P.3d at 331 .
Craig v. Craig 253 P.3d 624 Ariz. 2011
Craig v. Craig 253 P.3d 624 Ariz. 2011
In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Marquette Venture Partners II v. Leonesio 254 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Marquette Venture Partners II v. Leonesio 254 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Craig v. Craig 240 P.3d 1270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Craig v. Craig 240 P.3d 1270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Strait v. Strait 224 P.3d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Strait v. Strait 224 P.3d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
We review findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard; “however, we draw our own legal conclusions from facts found or implied in the judgment.’ ” ¶ 21 , ( ¶ 6 , ).
Tripati v. FORWITH 219 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Tripati v. FORWITH 219 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 11 , (noting premature notice of appeal should not be dismissed when “only ministerial tasks remained to accomplish the entry of a final judgment”).