DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Chopin v. Chopin, 232 P.3d 99.

32 citing documents.

  • In Re the Marriage of Wichansky Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
  • In Re the Marriage of Wichansky Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
  • In Re the Marriage of McCulloch 546 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
  • In Re the Marriage of McCulloch 546 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
  • Joseph v. Joseph Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Joseph v. Joseph Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    Separately “we review de novo the trial court's interpretation of a decree of dissolution.” ¶ 6 (App. 2010).
  • In Re the Marriage of Rojas 530 P.3d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
  • In Re the Marriage of Rojas 530 P.3d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
    “We review de novo the trial court’s interpretation of a decree of dissolution,” and its interpretation and application of the law
  • Sembower v. Sembower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Sembower v. Sembower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Whether a contract “is susceptible to more than one interpretation is a question of law, which we review de novo,” Grosvenor Holdings, 222 Ariz. at 593 ¶ 9, but if it is susceptible to more than one interpretation, we defer to the court’s findings of fact, including any findings on the parties’ intent, ¶ 7 (App. 2010).
  • Lattin v. Shamrock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Lattin v. Shamrock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Horst v. Horst Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Horst v. Horst Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ARCAP 21(a)(2); ¶ 24 (App. 2010).
  • Botto v. Botto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Botto v. Botto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Bobrow v. Bobrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Bobrow v. Bobrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    The parties’ intent is a question of fact for the fact finder, ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (citation omitted), and we will not reverse the fact finder’s determination unless it is clearly erroneous.
  • Calcagno v. Ainbinder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Calcagno v. Ainbinder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 6 (App. 2010) (“Generally, when a spousal maintenance agreement is merged into the decree of dissolution, the agreement becomes part of the decree.
  • Grimsland v. Jarrin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Grimsland v. Jarrin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶9 In Arizona, contracts will be reasonably construed and will be “read in light of the parties’ intentions as reflected by their language and in view of all circumstances.” ¶ 6, (citation omitted).
  • Foltin v. Foltin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Foltin v. Foltin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 13 (App. 2014); ¶ 7 (App. 2010).
  • Schott v. Schott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Schott v. Schott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 6 (App. 2010) (“Generally, when a spousal maintenance agreement is merged into the decree of dissolution, the agreement becomes part of the decree.
  • Fowler v. Fowler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Fowler v. Fowler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Shurts v. Shurts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Shurts v. Shurts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶8 The parties' intent is a question of fact for the fact finder, ¶ 7, and we will not reverse the fact finder's determination unless it is clearly erroneous.
  • Pachtman v. Pachtman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Pachtman v. Pachtman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶ 7, -47, ¶ 16, -50 (App. 2005) (“We must defer, absent clear error, to the factual findings upon which the trial court’s conclusions are based.”).