DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kelsey v. Kelsey, 918 P.2d 1067.

134 citing documents.

  • Laroya v. Laroya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Laroya v. Laroya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Vortex v. denkewicz/engelhard 334 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Vortex v. denkewicz/engelhard 334 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (affirming in a family law context that trial courts must determine a business entity’s value based on each case’s facts and circumstances); (asserting that “[t]he valuation of [business] assets is a factual determination that must be based on the facts and circumstances of each case.”).
  • Pachtman v. Pachtman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Pachtman v. Pachtman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “‘The valuation of assets is a factual determination that must be based on the facts and circumstances of each case.’” ¶ 9, ( ).
  • Gazeley v. Larsen-Gazeley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Gazeley v. Larsen-Gazeley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Sahlin v. Hon fridlund-horne/hartfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Sahlin v. Hon fridlund-horne/hartfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶9 When a party requests findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court is required to “set forth all facts necessary to resolve disputed issues so that [the appellate court] may examine and comprehend the basis for the trial court’s rulings.” -51, -69 (App. 1996).1 “If the trial court’s basis for a conclusion is unclear, this Court may not affirm simply because we may find some possible basis for that conclusion in the record.” Id.
  • Walsh v. Walsh 286 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Walsh v. Walsh 286 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    ¶ 9 “The valuation of assets is a factual determination that must be based on the facts and circumstances of each case.”
  • Simpson v. Simpson 229 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Simpson v. Simpson 229 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Pullen v. Pullen 222 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Pullen v. Pullen 222 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Engel v. Landman 212 P.3d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Engel v. Landman 212 P.3d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    B. Attribution of Childcare Expenses ¶ 21 “Generally, we review child support awards for abuse of discretion.” ¶ 6 , ( , ).
  • Marriage of Brebaugh v. Deane 118 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • Marriage of Brebaugh v. Deane 118 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    ¶ 23 “The valuation of assets is a factual determination that must be based on the facts and circumstances of each ease.”
  • Marriage of Alley v. Stevens 104 P.3d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • Marriage of Alley v. Stevens 104 P.3d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • Marriage of Fuentes v. Fuentes 97 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Marriage of Fuentes v. Fuentes 97 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    ¶ 10 “Awards of maintenance, child support and attorneys’ fees are within the trial court’s sound discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” , ( , ).
  • Magee v. Magee 81 P.3d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Magee v. Magee 81 P.3d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    [and][t]he statute is designed to ensure that the poorer party has the proper means to litigate the action.” , we upheld the trial court’s denial of fees, noting that such a decision must “focus on the parties’ relative abilities to pay the fees incurred....” , we performed a comparative examination of the parties’ resources and concluded that a pre-decree disparity justified the trial court’s award of fees but the lack of such disparity post-decree required that each party bear their own fees o
  • Hamblen v. Hamblen 54 P.3d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Hamblen v. Hamblen 54 P.3d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Marriage of McNutt v. McNutt 49 P.3d 300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Marriage of McNutt v. McNutt 49 P.3d 300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Marriage of Gutierrez v. Gutierrez 972 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Marriage of Gutierrez v. Gutierrez 972 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    (finding no abuse of discretion in awarding fees based on a pre-decree disparity in the parties’ financial resources).
  • Marriage of Muchesko v. Muchesko 955 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Marriage of Muchesko v. Muchesko 955 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997