DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

75 citing documents.

  • Pacheco v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    entry of default judgment is circumscribed by due process considerations,” id., which entitle a party to “notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,” ¶ 18 (App. 2011) ( ¶ 16 (App. 2006)).
  • Strong v. Owens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Strong v. Owens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • 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).