Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Maximov v. Maximov, 205 P.3d 1146.

32 citing documents.

Hartman v. Parrott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Hawkins v. Hawkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Legar v. Park Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Hawkins v. Hawkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
MacNeil v. Carter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
MacNeil v. Carter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶28 “We review the court’s decision to modify the amount of [spousal maintenance] for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 2 (App. 2009).
Porter v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Porter v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Greenboom v. Ran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Greenboom v. Ran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 9 (App. 2007) (spousal maintenance); ¶ 2 (App. 2009) (temporary orders).
Morales v. Morales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Morales v. Morales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶¶ 18–20 (App. 2022) (noting courts’ discretion to modify temporary support orders retroactively); ¶¶ 7–8 (App. 2009) (“[T]he family court retains its authority to modify temporary support nunc pro tunc.”).
Goodhope v. Goodhope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Goodhope v. Goodhope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 7 (App. 2009); ("Arizona law extends the trial court substantial discretion to set the amount and duration of spousal maintenance.").
Broadbent v. Broadbent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Broadbent v. Broadbent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Andaloro v. Andaloro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Andaloro v. Andaloro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
§ 25-315(F)(2); –02 ¶ 10 (App. 2009).
Barron v. Barron 443 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Barron v. Barron 443 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
§ 25-318 (2018); ¶ 7 (App. 2009) (citing Ariz. R. Fam.
McClendon v. McClendon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
McClendon v. McClendon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Uthe v. Uthe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Uthe v. Uthe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Bentley v. Bentley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Bentley v. Bentley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Simon v. Simon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Simon v. Simon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“We review the court’s decision to modify the amount of support for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 2 (App. 2009).
Bourke v. Bourke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Bourke v. Bourke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Britton 250 P.3d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Britton 250 P.3d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
While neither Defendant nor the State has cited this statute, “when we are considering the interpretation and application of statutes, we do not believe we can be limited to the arguments made by the parties if that would cause us to reach an incorrect result.” , 301 n. 4, ¶ 6, , 1148 n. 4 (App.2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).