Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Buencamino v. Noftsinger, 221 P.3d 41.

28 citing documents.

Washburn v. Houston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Washburn v. Houston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“Whether the relocation provisions of § 25-408 are applicable is an issue of statutory interpretation that we review de novo.” ¶ 7 (App. 2009) (citations omitted).
Nielsen v. Nielsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Nielsen v. Nielsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Bumekpor v. Shaw Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Bumekpor v. Shaw Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Whitman v. Whitman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Whitman v. Whitman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Robertson v. Buckner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Robertson v. Buckner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 28 (App. 2017); ¶ 7 (App. 2009) (whether the relocation statute applied is a question of law reviewed de novo).
Berrier v. Rountree 433 P.3d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Berrier v. Rountree 433 P.3d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
163, ¶¶ 8-10, , 42 (App. 2009).
Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn 394 P.3d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn 394 P.3d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 8 (App. 2009) (two prerequisites need to be met before applying § 25-408: (1) a written agreement or court order providing for custody or parenting time by both parents, and (2) both parents residing in Arizona).
Heroyan-Hamayak v. Hamayak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Heroyan-Hamayak v. Hamayak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Johnson v. Provoyeur Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Johnson v. Provoyeur Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 25-408(A); ¶¶ 8-10 (App. 2009).
Jordan v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jordan v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶¶ 7–10, (deciding when the family court is required to consider or make specific findings under the § 25-408(H) factors).
Eastman v. Eastman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Eastman v. Eastman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
n.3, ¶ 10, n.3 (App. 2009) (recognizing the discretion to apply some or all of the A.R.S.
Fowler v. Fowler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Fowler v. Fowler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Pesetsky v. Pesetsky Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Pesetsky v. Pesetsky Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Whether the relocation provisions of § 25-408 are applicable is an issue of statutory interpretation that we review de novo.” ¶ 7
Bither v. Country Mutual Insurance 245 P.3d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Bither v. Country Mutual Insurance 245 P.3d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010