Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Yee v. Yee, 484 P.3d 650.
-
Lemay v. Lemay
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 12-2101(A)(1), (2), (5)(a); ¶ 1 (App. 2021).
- Nitsch v. Klavuhn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Wassenaar v. Wassenaar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Wassenaar v. Wassenaar
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
section 12-2101(A)(2) (2021).1 ¶ 1 (App. 2021).
-
Nitsch v. Klavuhn
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
stated it “shall reserve jurisdiction to enter any QDRO(s) or other orders relating to the special master’s work.” ¶ 12 (App. 2007) (finding the court’s order adopting the special master’s report was not a final order of the court, because the superior court “contemplated the later preparation and entry of the [QDRO]”); ¶¶ 13-14 (App. 2021) (“Although a special order made after final judgment in family court does not require a Rule 78 statement of finality to be appealable, the family court must
- Dorn v. Dorn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Dorn v. Dorn
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over Mother’s challenge to the fee award, –76, ¶¶ 11–12, 14–15 (App. 2021), and we have jurisdiction only over Mother’s appeal of the superior court’s order for reimbursement of expenses.