Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Williams v. Williams, 264 P.3d 870.

32 citing documents.

  • Speltz v. Speltz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Speltz v. Speltz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    P. 91(b)(5); ¶ 25 (App. 2011) (“Like a complaint, a post-decree petition must set forth the relief sought.”).
  • Avalon Hills v. Lang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Avalon Hills v. Lang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶ 10 (App. 2021) (special orders made after final judgment must “affect ‘the underlying judgment by enforcing it or staying its execution’” (–27 (App. 1995))); ¶ 14 (App. 2011) (an appealable special order “alters the legal rights or responsibilities of the parties” without “need for later court action”).
  • Van Camp v. Van Camp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Van Camp v. Van Camp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Yee v. Yee 484 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Yee v. Yee 484 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    11, 2020) (finding ruling appealable without Rule 78(c) language) ¶ 29 n.8 (App. 2011) (noting in dicta that “in appropriate cases” Rule 78(b) certification was available) ¶ 4 n.4 (App. 2020) (finding Rule 78(c) was improper, given unresolved issues, but that Rule 78(b) was proper).
  • Matthews v. Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Matthews v. Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    affect the judgment or relate to its enforcement.” ¶ 11 (App. 2011).
  • In Re: v. Cortez 453 P.3d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • In Re: v. Cortez 453 P.3d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    “We decline to judicially graft that requirement onto a statute without terms requiring it.” ¶ 20 (App. 2011).
  • McClendon v. McClendon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • McClendon v. McClendon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 24 (App. 2011); Ariz. R. Fam.
  • United States v. Verde Ditch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • United States v. Verde Ditch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    § 12-2101(A)(2), we have jurisdiction over an appeal “[f]rom any special order made after final judgment.” “A post- judgment order is appealable when the order involves an issue distinct from the underlying judgment and immediately affect[s] a party’s rights.” ¶ 20 (App. 2011) (citations omitted).
  • Klien v. York Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Klien v. York Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 11 (App. 2011) (citations omitted).
  • Alvarado v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Alvarado v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    § 12- 2101(A)(2); -67, ¶¶ 19-29 (App. 2011) (order appealed from must resolve all issues in subject petition even though total finality in post-decree context is not required); -01, ¶ 4 (App. 2000) (order resolving petition to modify dissolution decree was appealable as a special order af
  • Cioppa v. Pataky Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Cioppa v. Pataky Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    § 12- 2101(A)(2); ¶ 4, (concluding an order resolving a petition to modify a decree of dissolution was appealable as a special order after final judgment); -67, ¶¶ 19-29, -77 (App. 2011) (ruling that an order appealed from must resolve all issues in the subject petition even though total finality in the post-decree context is not required).
  • ades/butkivich v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • ades/butkivich v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 11 (App. 2011) (); ¶ 3 (App. 2000).
  • Berry v. Decker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Berry v. Decker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Miller v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Miller v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    -67, ¶¶ 19-29, - 77 (App. 2011) (explaining total finality in post-decree context is not required as long as petition at issue is fully resolved).
  • McNeil v. Goff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • McNeil v. Goff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    § 12-2101(A)(2), (4) (West 2014); P.3d 870 (App. 2011) (addressing appealability of post-decree orders).
  • Lally v. Lally 265 P.3d 1068 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Lally v. Lally 265 P.3d 1068 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011