DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Milinovich v. Womack, 343 P.3d 924.

76 citing documents.

  • Yacullo v. Cunniffe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Yacullo v. Cunniffe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Potter v. Potter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Potter v. Potter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Yazbeck v. Yazbeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Yazbeck v. Yazbeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    DISCUSSION ¶6 “We review the [family] court’s ruling on a petition for modification of child support for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 7 (App. 2015).
  • Amadore v. Lifgren 431 P.3d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Amadore v. Lifgren 431 P.3d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    We review the interpretation of the Guidelines and applicable statutes de novo, ¶ 7 (App. 2015), and “apply the same rules of construction in interpreting the Guidelines that we use in construing statutes,” ¶ 10 (App. 2002) (citation omitted).
  • Hieger v. Hieger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Hieger v. Hieger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Alvarado v. Apodaca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Alvarado v. Apodaca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Birnstihl v. Birnstihl 416 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Birnstihl v. Birnstihl 416 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Milinovich v. Womack , , 615, ¶ 10, , 927 (App. 2015).
  • French v. Morin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • French v. Morin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Heroyan-Hamayak v. Hamayak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Heroyan-Hamayak v. Hamayak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See Guidelines § 5(A), (C); ¶ 15 (App. 2015) (explaining the Guidelines’ definition of “gross income” is broad and should be interpreted in accordance with the best interests of the child) (citations omitted).
  • In Re the Marriage of Allen 386 P.3d 1287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • In Re the Marriage of Allen 386 P.3d 1287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • Sherman v. Sherman 384 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Sherman v. Sherman 384 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Id, We look “to the[ Guidelines’] plain language as the most reliable indicator of the supreme court’s intent.” ¶ 10
  • Burns v. Burns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Burns v. Burns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Curto v. Curto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Curto v. Curto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    More recently, this court held that principal withdrawn from a short-term retirement account “falls within the Guidelines’ broad definition of gross income,” reasoning that “categorizing these monies as income is both consistent with the overall purposes of the Guidelines and the best interests of the child.” ¶ 15