Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Marriage of MacMillan v. Schwartz, 250 P.3d 1213.

236 citing documents.

Berkman v. Walt Danley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Berkman v. Walt Danley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 33 (App. 2011) (“Merely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient.
Boyd v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Boyd v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Salus v. Mata Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Salus v. Mata Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Goodwin v. Goodwin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Erlick v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Goodwin v. Goodwin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 33 (App. 2011); In re U.S. Currency in Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 28 (App. 2000).2 IV.
Erlick v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Warner v. Driggs-Warner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Warner v. Driggs-Warner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Dion v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Dion v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Mikalacki v. Rubezic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Mikalacki v. Rubezic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Being in the best position to observe and assess the parties’ conduct, the superior court found that Husband had engaged in a pattern of willful discovery delay and noncompliance.1 ¶ 38 (App. 2011).
Estrada v. Estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Bighorse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Bighorse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 33 (App. 2011) (“Merely mentioning an argument in an 5 STATE v. BIGHORSE Decision of the Court appellate opening brief is insufficient.”).
Estrada v. Estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 33 (App. 2011) (“Merely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient.”); Ace Auto.
Lemay v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Lemay v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 33 (App. 2011) (“Merely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient.”).
Lanier v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Lanier v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
on which the appellant relies”); ¶ 33 (App. 2011) (“Merely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient.”).
Harris v. Behnke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Harris v. Behnke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 33 (App. 2011) (“Merely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient.”).
McDougall v. McDougall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
McDougall v. McDougall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sembower v. Sembower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sembower v. Sembower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Jackman v. McCann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Jackman v. McCann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 33 (App. 2011); Delmastro & n.2 (App. 2011).
Gray v. Capstone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Gray v. Capstone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 33 (App. 2011) (“Merely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient.”).
Hill v. Moskowitz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Hill v. Moskowitz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Blue Palo v. Kimbrough Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Blue Palo v. Kimbrough Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 33 (App. 2011) (“Merely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient.”).
Ball v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ball v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 33 (App. 2011) (holding that a party waives issues he or she fails to develop or support in the opening brief).
Borowsky v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Borowsky v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ali v. Elsied Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Swansen v. Ball Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Swansen v. Ball Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ali v. Elsied Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 33 (App. 2011) (holding that merely mentioning issues in the 1 Father also argues that the court erred by not making specific findings under the seven additional relocation factors in § 25-408(I).
Harris v. Smith-Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Harris v. Smith-Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See, ¶ 33 (App. 2011) (“Merely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient.”); Ace Auto.
Svansdottir v. Johnsesn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Svansdottir v. Johnsesn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021