DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Glover v. Glover, 289 P.3d 12.

26 citing documents.

  • Morgan v. Morgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Morgan v. Morgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    “Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear and determine a controversy,” ¶ 7 (App. 2023) (citation omitted), and it cannot be waived, ¶ 8 (App. 2012).
  • Lagman v. Lagman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Lagman v. Lagman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    § 25-1301; ¶ 1 (App. 2012).
  • Ali v. Ali 509 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Ali v. Ali 509 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    .’” ¶ 18 3 ALI v. ALI Opinion of the Court (App. 2012) ( ¶ 7 (App. 2000)).
  • Williamson v. Williamson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Williamson v. Williamson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Subject-matter jurisdiction is "the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the particular proceedings belong[.]" ¶ 18 (App. 2012) (citation omitted).
  • Kennedy v. Wybenga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Kennedy v. Wybenga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    -7, ¶ 21 (App. 2012) (first alteration in original).
  • Greenham v. Hope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Greenham v. Hope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    2 ¶ 22 (App. 2012), and to determine whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
  • Marinello v. Glover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Marinello v. Glover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    (Arizona’s Uniform Interstate Family Support 1 and Marinello v. Glover, 1 CA-CV 14-0456, 2015 WL 4504172 (Ariz. App. July 23, 2015) (mem.
  • Marriage of Henderson v. Henderson 390 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • Marriage of Henderson v. Henderson 390 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • ades/taylor v. Pandola 382 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • ades/taylor v. Pandola 382 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Wagner v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Wagner v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Balazic v. Balazic 334 P.3d 771 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Balazic v. Balazic 334 P.3d 771 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    OPINION CATTANI, Judge: ¶ 1 , this court ruled that deficiencies in registration under Arizona’s version of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“AUIFSA”), Arizona Revised Statutes (“AR.S.”) §§ 25-1201 to -1342, 1 deprive Arizona courts of subject matter jurisdiction to modify a child support order from another stat
  • Hope v. Hope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Hope v. Hope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    c. Jurisdiction Under The UIFSA ¶24 Mother contends the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the child support order because it was not registered in compliance with the UIFSA.5 ¶ 1, (holding compliance with the registration requirements is necessary to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court).
  • Rash v. Town of Mammoth 315 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • Rash v. Town of Mammoth 315 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013