Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pullen v. Pullen, 222 P.3d 909.

96 citing documents.

Robbins v. Townsend Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Robbins v. Townsend Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Marinello v. Glover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Marinello v. Glover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 10 (App. 2009); ¶ 13 (App. 2014).
Heroyan-Hamayak v. Hamayak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Heroyan-Hamayak v. Hamayak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 9 (App. 2009) (citing Megremis v. Megremis, 633 S.E.2d 117, 123 (N.C.
Demario v. Demario Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Demario v. Demario Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Law P. 83; ¶ 10 (App. 2009) (citations omitted).
Hackett v. Hackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hackett v. Hackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 10, (internal quotation and citations omitted).
Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Zwar v. Swain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Zwar v. Swain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 9, (citations omitted).
Lambesis v. Lambesis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lambesis v. Lambesis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Marriage of Ames v. Ames 370 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Marriage of Ames v. Ames 370 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 10 (App. 2009) (noting that a court errs if, in reaching its decision, it applies an erroneous rule of law).
Magallanes v. Magallanes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Magallanes v. Magallanes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 10 (App. 2009) (noting superior court has broad discretion in ruling on motion for new trial).
Walker v. Sinikova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Walker v. Sinikova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 10 (App. 2009) (stating standard and reviewing for abuse of discretion); ¶ 8 (App. 2008) (“An abuse of discretion occurs when a court commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion.”).
Cordova v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cordova v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 22 (App. 2009) ( and ).
Hague v. Bill Houston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hague v. Bill Houston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
rance through the first agent.13 Because Hague cannot demonstrate that any breach of the standard of care by the Houston Agency – no matter the standard - caused her damage, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the Houston Agency or abuse its discretion in denying Hague’s motion for a new trial.14 See Orme Sch., 166 Ariz. at 309, 802 P.2d at 1008; ¶ 10
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“We review orders denying motions for new trial for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 10
Swett v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Swett v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lemad v. Miravista Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Lemad v. Miravista Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kent v. Carter-Kent 332 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kent v. Carter-Kent 332 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-67, -13 (App. 1984); ¶ 10
Dekker v. Dekker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Dekker v. Dekker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mejia v. Mejia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mejia v. Mejia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
MEJIA v. MEJIA Decision of the Court 297-98, ¶¶ 14-18, -14 (App. 2009) (noting that the court must balance five factors and other evidence to determine whether to use actual income or earning capacit
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Taylor-Bertling v. Foley 313 P.3d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Taylor-Bertling v. Foley 313 P.3d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
In Re Estate of Long 276 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In Re Estate of Long 276 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
-96, ¶¶ 9-10 , -12 (App. 2009).
Long v. Olen 276 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Long v. Olen 276 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
-96, ¶¶ 9-10 , -12 (App.2009).