Cited by

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

77 citing documents.

state/michaelson v. Michaelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
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More recently, this court held that principal withdrawn from a short-term retirement account “falls within the Guidelines’ broad definition of gross income,” reasoning that “categorizing these monies as income is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