DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Canty v. Canty, 874 P.2d 1000.

66 citing documents.

  • Moye v. Moye Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Moye v. Moye Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    [§] 25-403.” However, the law does not require a family court to find a “significant or extra ordinary circumstance[]” before modifying an existing parenting time order; a change may be made based upon any “material change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child.” ().
  • Wild v. Wild Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Wild v. Wild Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Vincent v. Nelson 357 P.3d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Vincent v. Nelson 357 P.3d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶17 To change a previous custody order, the family court must determine that there has been a “material change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child.”
  • Shifflett v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Shifflett v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (finding no error in court giving less weight to evidence of pre- decree domestic violence than it gave other statutory factors).
  • Reid v. Reid 213 P.3d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Reid v. Reid 213 P.3d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    The rationale for this requirement is not simply to aid appellate review — a rationale rejected as insufficient by our supreme court in Trantor — but also to provide the family court with a necessary “baseline” against which to measure any future petitions by either party based on “changed circumstances.” , (“To change a previous custody order, the court must determine whether there has been a material change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child.” ( , )); see also Anderson v. Ande
  • Owen v. Blackhawk 79 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Owen v. Blackhawk 79 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    ¶ 16 “To change a previous custody order, the court must determine whether there has been a material change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child.” , ( , ).
  • In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • J.D.S. v. Franks 893 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1995
  • J.D.S. v. Franks 893 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1995
    § 8-403(A)(l) (Arizona court has jurisdiction if “[tjhis state is the domicile or the home state of the child”) (emphasis added)