DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Vincent v. Nelson, 357 P.3d 834.

142 citing documents.

  • Farrell v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Farrell v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    We consider the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the court’s rulings, ¶ 14 (App. 2019), given it was “in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and resolve conflicting evidence,” ¶ 18 (App. 2015).
  • Kayser v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Kayser v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶ 18 (App. 2015); ¶ 16 (App. 2009).
  • Landwehr v. Landwehr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Landwehr v. Landwehr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Robinson v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Robinson v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶¶ 16–17 (App. 2015) (involving legal decision-making and parenting time); ¶ 6 (App. 2010) (involving child support).
  • Rosenberg v. Conzoner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Rosenberg v. Conzoner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Dineyazhe v. Onco-Ingyadet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Dineyazhe v. Onco-Ingyadet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    at 53, ¶ 22; ¶ 18 (App. 2015) (the superior court “is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and resolve conflicting evidence”).
  • Burton v. Groeneveld Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Burton v. Groeneveld Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Ali v. Elsied Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Ali v. Elsied Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Moncur v. Moncur Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Moncur v. Moncur Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶ 18 (App. 2015) (“[T]he [superior] court is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and resolve conflicting evidence, and appellate courts generally defer to the findings of the [superior] court.”).
  • Daurio v. Daurio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Daurio v. Daurio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Nebeker v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Nebeker v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶ 20 (App. 2019); ¶ 18 (App. 2015).
  • Ward v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Ward v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶ 18 (App. 2015) (“[T]he family court is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and resolve conflicting evidence, and appellate courts generally defer to the findings of the family court.”).
  • Ratliff v. Billingsley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Ratliff v. Billingsley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    The evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to upholding the court's findings since “the family court is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and resolve conflicting evidence, and appellate courts generally defer to the findings of the family court.” ¶¶ 17, 18 (App. 2015).
  • Backstrand v. Backstrand 479 P.3d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Backstrand v. Backstrand 479 P.3d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶ 18 (App. 2015) (“[T]he family court is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and resolve conflicting 10 BACKSTRAND v. BACKSTRAND Opinion of the Court evidence, and appellate courts generally defer to th
  • Cash v. Cash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Cash v. Cash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Brown v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Brown v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Wheeler v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Wheeler v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Johnson v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Johnson v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶ 15 (App. 2013) (); ¶ 16 (App. 2003) (); ¶ 17 (App. 2015) (quoting Canty, 178 Ariz. at 448).
  • Berk v. Dimarco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Berk v. Dimarco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Wethe v. Wethe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Wethe v. Wethe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    We generally defer to the findings of the court because “the family court is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and resolve conflicting evidence.” ¶ 18 (App. 2015).
  • Hefner v. Hefner 456 P.3d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Hefner v. Hefner 456 P.3d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Deferring to the fact-finder’s credibility determination, as we must, ¶ 18 (App. 2015) (citing Goats v. A. J. Bayless Mkts., Inc., Husband did not rebut the presumption in favor of community property with clear and convincing evidence.
  • Thornburg v. Thornburg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Thornburg v. Thornburg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    4 THORNBURG v. THORNBURG Decision of the Court (); ¶¶ 16-18 (App. 2015).
  • Wright v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Wright v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Whitman v. Whitman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Whitman v. Whitman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶8 Mother contends § 25-408(A) creates additional jurisdictional requirements beyond those of § 25-1032(A), and Father did not meet those requirements because he resided in Ohio when he filed his petition.
  • Curtis v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Curtis v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019