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.

  • Perkins v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Perkins v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Kitchen v. Fleming, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Kitchen v. Fleming, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    “[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.” ¶ 18 (App. 2015); ¶ 13 (App. 1998) (noting that we defer to the family court on determinations of witness credibility and the weight to give to conflicting evidence).
  • Quijada v. Quijada 437 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Quijada v. Quijada 437 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶¶ 17-18 (App. 2015) ( ¶¶ 16, 19 (App. 2009), and Goats v. A. J. Bayless Mkts., Inc., ).
  • Terepocki v. Grim-Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Terepocki v. Grim-Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 18 (App. 2015) (noting that the trial court is in the best position to judge credibility and resolve conflicting evidence and that the appellate court generally defers to its findings).
  • Uthe v. Uthe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Uthe v. Uthe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See id.; ¶ 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.”).
  • Vahidi v. Hosseini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Vahidi v. Hosseini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶¶ 17-18 (App. 2015); ¶ 9 (App. 2012).
  • Wright v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Wright v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Halloum v. Hasasneh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Halloum v. Hasasneh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 18 (App. 2015) (superior court is in best position to judge credibility of witnesses and resolve conflicting evidence, and appellate court generally defers to its findings).
  • Heuchan v. Lipko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Heuchan v. Lipko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Krenz v. Neuman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 18 (App. 2015); see Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 347, ¶ 13.
  • Krenz v. Neuman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Matthews v. Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Matthews v. Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 17 (App. 2015); ¶ 9 (App. 2012).
  • French v. Morin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • French v. Morin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    To modify a custody or parenting time order, the family court must determine that there has been a “material change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child.” ¶ 17 (App. 2015) (court did not err in finding no material change warranting modification of legal decision making or parenting time) (); see also Pridgeon v. Super.
  • Kazi v. Saleem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Kazi v. Saleem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Hoffmann v. Hoffmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Hoffmann v. Hoffmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Corkery v. Love Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Corkery v. Love Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    o this child.” The superior court concluded that Love “must first demonstrate stability and sobriety before the Court can be persuaded that parenting time will not endanger the physical, mental or emotional health of the Child.”3 We defer to the superior court’s findings because it is in “the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and resolve conflicting evidence.” ¶ 18
  • Mortensen v. Mortensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Mortensen v. Mortensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 18, (“family court is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses”); Ariz. R. Civ.
  • Rivera v. Drake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Rivera v. Drake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Lockerby v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Lockerby v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 8 (App. 2015); ¶ 6 (App. 2006).
  • Murray v. Murray 367 P.3d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Murray v. Murray 367 P.3d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Toth v. Brower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Toth v. Brower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (“[T]he family court is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and resolve 2Unless otherwise specified, we cite to the current version of the applicable statutes because no revisions material to this decision have occurred.