DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Marriage of Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 972 P.2d 676.

582 citing documents.

  • Davies v. Davies Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Davies v. Davies Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    -48, ¶ 13, -81 (App. 1998).
  • Teamer v. Daniells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Teamer v. Daniells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Mother disputes some of these instances, but we “defer to the trial court’s determination of witnesses’ credibility and the weight to give conflicting evidence.” ¶ 13
  • State v. Tittle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Tittle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Boyle v. Boyle 290 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Boyle v. Boyle 290 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Mahar v. Acuna, II 287 P.3d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • Mahar v. Acuna, II 287 P.3d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    (specifying test for determining sufficiency of notice of appeal); (observing notices of appeal liberally construed whenever possible).
  • Valento v. Valento 240 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Valento v. Valento 240 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    ¶ 13 , (we defer to the family court’s determination of witness credibility).
  • In Re Marriage of Flower 225 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • In Re Marriage of Inboden 225 P.3d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • In Re Marriage of Inboden 225 P.3d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • In Re Marriage of Flower 225 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • 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
  • Cullum v. Cullum 160 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Cullum v. Cullum 160 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Marriage of Kohler v. Kohler 118 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • Marriage of Kohler v. Kohler 118 P.3d 621 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
    See, -49, ¶ 21 , -82 (App.1998) (accepting as appropriate the introduction of a budget reflecting the wife’s average monthly expenses).
  • 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
    It is important that the cases describing eligible applicants as “least able to pay,” possessing “fewer resources,” or possessing “limited financial means,” not be misinterpreted as requiring that the applicant be “unable to pay,” possess “no resources,” or have “no financial means.” See Gubser, 126 Ariz. at 305 , 614 P.2d at 847 (limited financial means); ¶ 33 , (least able to pay); Countryman, 135 Ariz. at 111 , 659 P.2d at 664 (poorer).
  • Marriage of Donlann v. MacGurn 55 P.3d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Marriage of Donlann v. MacGurn 55 P.3d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    § 25-324, “courts have discretion to award attorneys’ fees in a divorce case ‘after considering the financial resources of both parties and the reasonableness of the positions each party has taken throughout the proceedings.’” ¶ 32 , (quoting A.R.S.
  • McDonald v. Thomas 12 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • McDonald v. Thomas 12 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    See *593 ¶ 13 , (requiring deference to trial court’s determination regarding weight to give to conflicting evidence).
  • Schlaefer v. Financial Management Service, Inc. 996 P.2d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Schlaefer v. Financial Management Service, Inc. 996 P.2d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    ¶ 6 , (presumption that debts incurred during marriage are presumed to be community absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary is primarily intended for the benefit of creditors).