Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cook v. Losnegard, 265 P.3d 384.

72 citing documents.

Grubb v. Thraikill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Grubb v. Thraikill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cruz v. Garcia, ___ Ariz. ___, ___, 2016 WL 3390235, at *2, ¶ 11 (App. 2016) ( ¶ 18 (App. 2011)).
Laura Cruz v. Robert Garcia 377 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Laura Cruz v. Robert Garcia 377 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Sharkey v. Sharkey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sharkey v. Sharkey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Bastian v. Endresen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Bastian v. Endresen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Heidbreder, 230 Ariz. at 381, ¶¶ 13–14; –06, ¶¶ 17–18 (App. 2011).
Mayol v. Rowlls Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Mayol v. Rowlls Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
XIV; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 4; and Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550 (1965)); ¶ 18 (App. 2011) (noting parties are entitled to adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding issues the family court will adjudicate at a hearing) ( ¶ 16 (App. 2006)).
Honig v. Ahcccs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Honig v. Ahcccs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 22 (App. 2011); see Stagecoach Trails MHC, ¶ 21 (App. 2013) (“Judicial rulings alone do not support a finding of bias or partiality without a showing of an extrajudicial source of bias or deep-seated favoritism.”).
Volk v. Brame 333 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Volk v. Brame 333 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
allowing the parties to gather and present their evidence.” ¶ 14 , ¶¶ 19-20 , (vacating order modifying child support in part because trial court failed to receive or consider evidence, and directing court to consider such evidence on remand).
Hope v. Hope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Hope v. Hope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative 314 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative 314 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(“‘Due process entitles a party to notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’”)
Heidbreder v. Heidbreder 284 P.3d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Heidbreder v. Heidbreder 284 P.3d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
this court reversed a trial court’s modification of child support on the grounds the mother received inadequate notice that the court would address the issue of child support at trial.
Madison v. Groseth 279 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Madison v. Groseth 279 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 18 , (“ ‘Due process entitles a party to notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ ”) (citation omitted).