Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kline v. Kline, 212 P.3d 902.

130 citing documents.

Thomas Cox v. Hon. ponce/makayla Esplin 491 P.3d 1109 Ariz. 2021
Thomas Cox v. Hon. ponce/makayla Esplin 491 P.3d 1109 Ariz. 2021
–69 ¶ 13 (App. 2009) (noting that law interpreting other statewide rules is applicable when “the language of the family law rules is substantially the same”).
Svansdottir v. Johnsesn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Svansdottir v. Johnsesn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Best v. Holliday Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Best v. Holliday Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 21 (App. 2009) (discussing adequacy of service).
Stroud v. Pb Bell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Stroud v. Pb Bell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
And “[w]hen no transcript is provided on appeal, the reviewing court assumes that the record supports the trial court’s decision.” ¶ 33 (App. 2009) ( ¶ 11 (App. 1998)).
Laveen Meadows v. Mejia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Laveen Meadows v. Mejia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Parmeley v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Parmeley v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Thompson v. Burton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Thompson v. Burton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
4 THOMPSON v. BURTON, ¶ 33 (App. 2009).
Lapour Dc One v. Jml Energy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Lapour Dc One v. Jml Energy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 11 (App. 2009) (orders refusing to set aside a default judgment are appealable).
Price v. Slayden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Price v. Slayden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
B of A/swartz v. Avwga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
B of A/swartz v. Avwga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 29 (App. 2009) (“[T]he amount of punitive damages awarded must find some reasonable support in the record even when judgment is entered by default.”) (citation omitted); S. Ariz. Sch.
Colby v. Colby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Colby v. Colby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 15 (App. 2009), where we held that a default judgment for spousal maintenance is valid pursuant to ARFLP 44(G)3—which was identical to Rule 54—if the petitioner specifically requested spousal maintenance in a pleading and provided the opposing party legally adequate notice of the pleading.
Shepherd v. Costco 441 P.3d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Shepherd v. Costco 441 P.3d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 23 (App. 2010) ( ¶ 29 (App. 2009)).
Delacruz v. Neriz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Delacruz v. Neriz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Joshua Stanwitz v. reagan/outlaw Dirty Money 429 P.3d 1138 Ariz. 2018
Joshua Stanwitz v. reagan/outlaw Dirty Money 429 P.3d 1138 Ariz. 2018
Bank of Ny v. Dodev 433 P.3d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Bank of Ny v. Dodev 433 P.3d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
For support, ¶ 10 (App. 2009).
Downum v. Downum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Downum v. Downum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Kazzazi v. Das Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Kazzazi v. Das Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Yon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Yon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
P. 5(c); ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (noting, after comparing Rule 4 with Rule 5(c), "[t]he rules governing service differ significantly depending on whether a party to be served has made an 'appearance.'").
Bocchino v. Fountain Shadows 418 P.3d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Bocchino v. Fountain Shadows 418 P.3d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
P. 54(d) (2015) (“A judgment by default shall not be different in kind from or exceed in amount that prayed for in the demand for judgment.”); ¶ 27 (App. 2009) (Rule 54(d) “serves the goals of due process by preventing a plaintiff from securing a result in a default proceeding without giving the defendant notice of the risk he faces.”).
Chandler v. Ellington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Chandler v. Ellington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 33 (App. 2009); ARCAP 11(c)(1)(A) (“The appellant must order transcripts of superior court proceedings not already in the official record that the appellant deems necessary for proper consideration of the issues on appeal.”).
In re In re 418 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
In re In re 418 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
quoting Kline v. Kline , , ¶ 18, (alteration in Peterbilt ).
Dellaripa v. Hon. holding/dellaripa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Dellaripa v. Hon. holding/dellaripa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶15 In Arizona, a party “[makes] a general appearance when he has taken any action, other than objecting to personal jurisdiction, that recognizes the case is pending in court.” ¶ 18 (App. 2009).
State Ex Rel. Brnovich v. Cisneros-Ruiz 381 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State Ex Rel. Brnovich v. Cisneros-Ruiz 381 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 18 (App. 2009) (noting, after comparing Rule 4 with Rule 5(c), “[t]he rules governing service differ significantly depending on whether a party to be served has made an ‘appearance’”).
Alvarado v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Alvarado v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Law P. 1, 2(A); -69, ¶ 13 (App. 2009).
Timeless v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Timeless v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016