Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Olesen v. daniel/burge, 484 P.3d 139.

41 citing documents.

  • Warner v. Gurule Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    ¶ 17 (App. 2021); see also Diezsi, 201 Ariz. at 526, ¶ 5 (findings required whether granting or denying petition).
  • CHRISTOPHER v. v. ERICA O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    The requirement for specific best-interests findings cannot be waived.2 ¶ 17 (App. 2021); -73, ¶¶ 7-10 (App. 2013).
  • Gonzalez v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Gonzalez v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    “This statutory requirement cannot be satisfied by inference from a court’s order or waived by a party.” ¶ 17 (App. 2021).
  • Schneider v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Schneider v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    ¶ 17 (App. 2021); ¶ 5 (App. 2002) (findings required whether granting or denying petition).
  • Garcia v. Vallon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Garcia v. Vallon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • McManus v. McManus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • McManus v. McManus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Washum v. Paskett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Washum v. Paskett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    ¶ 17 (App. 2021) (as amended); ¶ 5 (App. 2002).
  • Brooks v. cardoza/braswell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Brooks v. cardoza/braswell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Reynolds v. Spencer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    ¶ 14 (App. 2021); ¶ 9 (App. 2019).
  • Griebel v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Griebel v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    ¶¶ 15–16 (App. 2021) (holding those findings are required when denying offending parent’s request for legal decision-making); DeLuna, 247 Ariz. at 423 ¶ 17 (holding same when granting such a request).
  • Krakana v. Hadden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Krakana v. Hadden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    ¶ 14 (App. 4 KRAKANA v. HADDEN Decision of the Court 2021); ¶ 9 (App. 2019).
  • Samuel Fuentes v. Tucson City Court Hon. Jay Cranshaw 541 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
  • Samuel Fuentes v. Tucson City Court Hon. Jay Cranshaw 541 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
    Id.; (“[T]he statute explicitly invites the offending parent to present evidence of a change in circumstances.”).
  • Dunn v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Dunn v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Alulddin v. Alfartousi 532 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Alulddin v. Alfartousi 532 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Olesen v. daniel/burge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Olesen v. daniel/burge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    §§ 25-403 and -409,” and to correct the court’s failure “to make the required findings regarding whether Father rebutted the statutory presumption.” ¶¶ 24-25 (App. 2021).
  • Atkison v. Shafer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Atkison v. Shafer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Van Zilen v. Bouse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Van Zilen v. Bouse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶ 14 (App. 2021); ¶ 9 (App. 2019).
  • Marlowe v. Mickelsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Marlowe v. Mickelsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    4 MARLOWE v. MICKELSEN Decision of the Court ¶14 Father, nonetheless, argues the superior court should have allowed him to present evidence on the best-interests factors to rebut § 25- 403.03.D’s presumption against awarding him sole or joint legal decision- making, ¶ 23 (App. 2021).
  • Russ v. Tognetti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Russ v. Tognetti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    (child support); ¶ 14 (App. 2021) (legal decision-making); ¶ 9 (App. 2019) (parenting time).
  • Gish v. Greyson 514 P.3d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Gish v. Greyson 514 P.3d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶ 14 (App. 2021); ¶ 9 (App. 2019).
  • Georgina L. v. Lynda R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Georgina L. v. Lynda R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    EORGINA L. v. LYNDA R., et al. Decision of the Court ¶11 The doctrine of issue preclusion “precludes relitigating an issue of fact in a later case when, in a previous case, the same issue was actually litigated, a final judgment was entered, and the party against whom the doctrine is to be invoked had a full and fair opportunity to litigate.” ¶ 20 (App. 2021) ( ¶ 14 (2019)).
  • Starr v. Az Bof Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Starr v. Az Bof Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    § 41-619.55(C), (E); ¶ 23 (App. 2021) (a subsequent claim is not precluded when “the statute explicitly invites the offending parent to present evidence of a change in circumstances”).