Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Graville v. Dodge, 985 P.2d 604.

84 citing documents.

Flynn v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Flynn v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Burke 360 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Burke 360 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“In reviewing a challenge to a statute, we presume that the statute is constitutional and must construe it, if possible, to give it a constitutional meaning.” McMahon, 201 Ariz. at 550, ¶ 5, 38 P.3d at 1215; ¶ 17, (“We .
Olariu v. Gibbons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Olariu v. Gibbons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 53 (App. 1999) (reviewing cost award for abuse of discretion).
Roberto F. v. Department of Child Safety 332 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Roberto F. v. Department of Child Safety 332 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Although this interest is not without limits, ¶ 20 , the interest “does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State.” Santosky, 455 U.S. at 753 , 102 S.Ct.
Lambertus v. Hon. porter/day-strange 332 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Lisa K. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 281 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Lisa K. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 281 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
“We presume a statute to be constitutional and will not declare an act of the legislature unconstitutional unless convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that it conflicts with the federal or state constitutions.”
Marriage of MacMillan v. Schwartz 250 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Marriage of MacMillan v. Schwartz 250 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Hormel v. Maricopa County 232 P.3d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Hormel v. Maricopa County 232 P.3d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Egan v. Fridlund-Horne 211 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Egan v. Fridlund-Horne 211 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
2054 , 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) (citing more than seventy-five years of precedent confirming the fundamental rights of parents to control the upbringing of their children); ¶ 19 , (“[P]arents have a constitutionally protected right under the Fourteenth Amendment to raise their children as they see fit.”).
Sheehan v. Flower 170 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Sheehan v. Flower 170 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 18 , (“ Dodge I") ("Under the common law, grandparents had no legal rights to visitation with their grandchildren.”); , (“Prior to the enactment of grandparent visitation statutes, grandparents had no legal rights to v
Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Varsity Gold, Inc. v. Porzio 45 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Varsity Gold, Inc. v. Porzio 45 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Marriage of Woodworth v. Woodworth 42 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Marriage of Woodworth v. Woodworth 42 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 42 , (visitation order involved “sensitive areas of parental control”); Reid v. Reid, 20 Ariz.App.
Minh T. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 41 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Minh T. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 41 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
McGovern v. McGovern 33 P.3d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
McGovern v. McGovern 33 P.3d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
THE COURT DOES FIND, however, that the quantity of visitation time requested is excessive, may have an adverse impact on the child’s customary activities, and is greater than the minimal intrusion contemplated by Graville [v. Dodge, , ].
Jackson v. Tangreen 18 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Jackson v. Tangreen 18 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Lucille v. Dodge 5 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Lucille v. Dodge 5 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶¶ 39-42 , review denied, Graville v. Dodge, No. CV-9900910PR (June 16,1999) (“Dodge I”).