Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Marriage of MacMillan v. Schwartz, 250 P.3d 1213.
- Felix v. Montes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Felix v. Montes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Sarbu v. Carp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Sarbu v. Carp
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
2 Although mother waived this argument by not developing it on appeal, see ARCAP 13(a)(7) (requiring appellant’s brief to contain argument with citations to legal authority and the record); ¶ 33, (“Merely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient .
- Kazi v. Saleem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Kazi v. Saleem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Brubacher v. Propaganda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Edwards v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Edwards v. Smith
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A); ¶ 33 (App. 2011); Ace Auto.
-
Brubacher v. Propaganda
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 33 (App. 2011) (“[m]erely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient,” and doing so constitutes abandonment and waiver).
- Evers v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Evers v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- McDivitt v. Geico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
McDivitt v. Geico
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“Merely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient.” ¶ 33 (App. 2011).
- Chambers v. Fox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Chambers v. Fox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Unted v. Gammage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Unted v. Gammage
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 33 (App. 2011) (“Merely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient.”).
- Demario v. Demario Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Demario v. Demario
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 36 (App. 2011); ¶ 6 (App. 2004).
- Atr v. Cec Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Atr v. Cec
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 33 (App. 2011); see also Ace Auto.
- Bentley v. Bentley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Bentley v. Bentley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Senter v. Senter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Senter v. Senter
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 36 (App. 2011); ¶ 6 (App. 2004).
- Mortensen v. Mortensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Mortensen v. Mortensen
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 36, (reviewing an award of attorneys’ fees and costs for an abuse of discretion).
- Thompson v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Thompson v. Thompson
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 25-324’ in the absence of a request.”) ( ¶ 39 (App. 2011)).
- Jackson v. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Jackson v. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Grimsland v. Jarrin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Grimsland v. Jarrin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- ades/butkivich v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- ades/butkivich v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Wild v. Wild Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Wild v. Wild Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Cason v. Cason
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 33 (App. 2011) (noting that the failure to argue a claim in the opening brief constitutes abandonment and waiver) ( n.9, ¶ 101 (2004), and Schabel v. Deer Valley Unified Sch.
- Valenzuela v. Luna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Valenzuela v. Luna
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 25-324.” ¶ 10, ( ¶ 39, ).
- Nick Hardy v. Nyberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Nick Hardy v. Nyberg
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See ARCAP 13(a)(6)–(7) (opening brief shall include “‘statement of the issues’ presented for review” and “contentions concerning each issue presented for review”); ¶ 33, (noting that the failure to argue a claim in the opening brief constitutes abandonment and waiver).
- Davis v. Desert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Davis v. Desert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Guislan v. Helmus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Guislan v. Helmus
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Although the family court did not have to make express findings of fact in support of its fee award, ¶ 39, the court cannot award fees without considering the statutory factors.
- Jurgen M., Ashley C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Jurgen M., Ashley C. v. Dcs
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Opening briefs must present significant arguments, supported by authority, setting forth the appellant’s position on the issues raised.” ¶ 33 (App. 2011); see also ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A).