Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Schickner v. Schickner, 348 P.3d 890.

88 citing documents.

Hill v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Hill v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Ortiz v. Diejuez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Ortiz v. Diejuez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Menghini v. Menghini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Menghini v. Menghini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Stickler v. Stickler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Stickler v. Stickler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Morris v. Morris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Morris v. Morris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Jost v. Jost Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Jost v. Jost Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
We review these issues for an abuse of discretion.1 ¶ 13 (App. 2015); ¶ 18 (App. 2009); 351, ¶¶ 14, 32 (App. 1998)
K.C. v. Dcs, Deandra G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
K.C. v. Dcs, Deandra G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Butler v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Butler v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Although we defer to the court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, ¶ 13 (App. 2015) (citing City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 58 (App. 2008)), we are not bound by its conclusions of law, ¶ 6 (App. 2004).
Lewis Y. v. Cassidy G., A.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Lewis Y. v. Cassidy G., A.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Action No. J-9365, 157 Ariz. at 499; ¶ 13 (App. 2015).
Ridley v. Ridley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ridley v. Ridley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 22 (App. 2015); see also A.R.S.
Krenzen v. Katz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Krenzen v. Katz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Penny G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Penny G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Robert G. v. Dcs, R.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Robert G. v. Dcs, R.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
or the record fails to provide substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding.’” 3 Father informed the court telephonically he was unable to appear in person because he lives in Tucson and his car broke down.
Schickner v. Schickner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Schickner v. Schickner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
At the same time, the court made several additional temporary orders, including that Husband reimburse Wife for one-half of the $3,200 monthly mortgage payments on the family 1 We derive some of the facts from this court’s
Bachrach v. Bachrach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bachrach v. Bachrach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bobrow v. Bobrow 391 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bobrow v. Bobrow 391 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-98, ¶ 13 , (a factual finding is erroneous if no substantial evidence supports it).
Knight v. Knight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Knight v. Knight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 22 (App. 2015) ( ¶ 4 (App. 2007)).
Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
alter the status of preexisting community property [or] [c]hange the status of community property used to acquire new property or the status of that new property as community property.”); ¶ 30 (App. 2015) (noting profits derived from existing community assets are subject to equitable division); see also ARCAP 13(b) (stating the appellate court may affirm judgment based on any grounds properly presented in the record); ¶ 4 (App. 2008) (“[W]e will affirm the co