Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Williams v. Williams, 801 P.2d 495.

50 citing documents.

Aguayo v. Aguayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Aguayo v. Aguayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
An abuse of discretion is “an exercise of discretion which is manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.” ¶ 16 (2011) (holding that this Court will affirm an attorney’s fees award unless the record supports no reasonable basis).
State v. Longhini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Longhini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Castaneda 517 P.3d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Castaneda 517 P.3d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
A superior court abuses its discretion if its ruling “is manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.” ().
Sembower v. Sembower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sembower v. Sembower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
An abuse of discretion is “an exercise of discretion which is manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.”
Stephanie S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Stephanie S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
The superior court abuses its discretion when its decision is “manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.”
Robert L. v. Dcs, A.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Robert L. v. Dcs, A.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
An abuse of discretion is “an exercise of discretion which is manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.”
Wassenaar v. Wassenaar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Wassenaar v. Wassenaar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Svansdottir v. Johnsesn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Svansdottir v. Johnsesn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Bellino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Bellino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
2 STATE v. BELLINO Decision of the Court An abuse of discretion is “an exercise of discretion [that] is manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.” ().
State v. Nye Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Nye Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“’Abuse of discretion’ has been defined as an exercise of discretion which is manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.” ().
State v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Peralta v. Peralta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Peralta v. Peralta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. McEvoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. McEvoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
is manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.” ().
Potter v. Potter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Potter v. Potter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See, -37, -15 (App. 1996) (affirming child support award based upon income attributed to unemployed parent who had a college degree, prior experience in accounting and computer programming, and fairly solid work history for many years); (“Based upon the testimony regarding the husband’s past earning history and his future earning capacity, we do not believe that the trial court erred in attributing income to the husband in the amount of $4,000 per month.”).
Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Generally, an abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is “manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.” ATKINSON v. MCINDOO Decision of the Court 500 (App. 1990) ( and Torres v. N. Am.
State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 11 Abuse of discretion is “an exercise of discretion which is manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.” , ( , ).
Marriage of McHale v. McHale 109 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Marriage of McHale v. McHale 109 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(“Interpretation of a statute involves the resolution of legal rather than factual issues.
State v. Wagner 976 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Wagner 976 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
An abuse of discretion is “ ‘an exercise of discretion which is manifestly unreasonable, exercised *10 on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.’” , ( , ).
In Re the Marriage of Pearson v. Pearson 946 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re the Marriage of Pearson v. Pearson 946 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Indeed, if the court finds that “earnings are reduced as a matter of choice and not for reasonable cause, the court may attribute income to a parent up to his or her earning capacity.” Guidelines, ¶ 5.e; , (“[biased upon the testimonregarding the husband’s past earning history and his future earning capacity, we do not believe that the trial court erred in attributing income to the husband in the amount of $4,000 per month”).
Moran v. Moran 933 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Moran v. Moran 933 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
§ 25-201(A) (“Parties intending to marry may enter into agreements not contrary to good morals or law.”); , (antenuptial agreements are enforceable if they do not violate public policy).
Antonsen v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY OF MARICOPA 918 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Antonsen v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY OF MARICOPA 918 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
See, , (appeal from visitation order in paternity action); , (husband challenged paternity testing on direct appeal in dissolution action); R.A.J.
Hrudka v. Hrudka 919 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hrudka v. Hrudka 919 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Victor v. Victor 866 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Victor v. Victor 866 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
260, 262, (parties may enter into premarital agreements if not against public poli- • cy).
State v. Woody 845 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Woody 845 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
“ ‘Abuse of discretion’ has been defined as an exercise of discretion which is manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.”