DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Murray v. Murray, 367 P.3d 78.

85 citing documents.

  • Wright v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶ 5 (App. 2016); ¶ 16 (App. 2009).
  • Deluna v. Petitto 450 P.3d 1273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Deluna v. Petitto 450 P.3d 1273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    § 25- 403 because a proposed relocation involved a substantial and disputed change in physical custody); ¶ 9 (App. 2016) (“Under Owen, when the superior court holds a hearing on a request for relocation that necessarily implicates a change in parenting time or legal decision making, the court must make the specific findings of fact required in cases of parenting time and legal decision making under § 25-403.”).4 ¶
  • Johnson v. Malone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Johnson v. Malone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Whitman v. Whitman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Whitman v. Whitman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶11 Even if she had raised the issue, the one-year bar established by § 25-411(A) applies equally to parents seeking to relocate when a proposed relocation “would implicate a further change in decision-making or parenting time.” ¶ 9 (App. 2016); (finding the custodial parent’s “proposed move is in the nature of a motion to modify visitation” and when “a parent seeks to remove a child from the state and .
  • Lewis v. Rehkow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Lewis v. Rehkow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Fleck v. Antti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Fleck v. Antti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Terrell v. Torres 438 P.3d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Terrell v. Torres 438 P.3d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • 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
    ¶ 20 (App. 2016) ( ¶ 6 (App. 2004)).
  • James S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • James S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    requires that when there are disputed issues of fact as to a child’s best interests, ‘the court must allow 10 JAMES S. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court the parties to present evidence before it makes its finding.’” 6 ¶ 16 (App. 2016) ( ¶ 18 (App. 2016)); -20, ¶¶ 11-15 (App. 1999) (holding a mother’s procedural due process rights were violated when the juvenile court held a restitution hearing and ordered her to pay restitution on her son’s behalf without allowing her an opportunity to contes
  • Berrier v. Rountree 433 P.3d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Berrier v. Rountree 433 P.3d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    § 25-408(G), (I) ; Murray v. Murray , , 177, ¶ 9, , 81 (App. 2016) ; Owen v. Blackhawk , , 421, ¶ 9, , 670 (App. 2003).
  • Baldere v. Stark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Baldere v. Stark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Wright v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Wright v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 5 (App. 2016) ( ¶ 7 (App. 2003), ¶ 7 (App. 2008)).
  • Meadows v. Jeffers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Meadows v. Jeffers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Hykes v. Peak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Hykes v. Peak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    3 HYKES v. PEAK Decision of the Court ¶10 Section 25-408 governs relocation and sets forth the process by which the superior court “may allow a parent who shares parenting time or legal decision-making to relocate the child.” ¶ 6 (App. 2016).
  • Haddad v. Geegieh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Haddad v. Geegieh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 20 (App. 2016) (citation omitted).
  • Grubb v. Thraikill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Grubb v. Thraikill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    at *3, ¶ 16 ( ¶ 18 (App. 2016), ¶ 15 (App. 2012), ).
  • Artemchuk v. Chernysh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Artemchuk v. Chernysh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Laura Cruz v. Robert Garcia 377 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • Laura Cruz v. Robert Garcia 377 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    Due process requires that when there are disputed issues of fact as to a child’s best interests, “the court must allow the parties to present evidence before it makes its finding.” see Heidbreder, 284 P.3d at 892 (directing parties to file financial affidavits after hearing at which court raised issue of child support sua sponte “was not a proper substitute for providing the parties a full opportunity to be meaningfully heard” on the issue