Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Marriage of Higgins v. Higgins, 981 P.2d 134.

48 citing documents.

traylor/reeves v. Reeves Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
traylor/reeves v. Reeves Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Cavness v. Cavness-Engstrand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Cavness v. Cavness-Engstrand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
To permit appearance via an answer but not a Rule 12(b)(6) motion would “[o]ne who represents herself in civil litigation is given the same consideration on appeal as one who has been represented by counsel.” ¶ 12 (App. 1999).
In Re Dependency as to A.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re Dependency as to A.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Watkins v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Watkins v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
3 WATKINS v. LANE Decision of the Court Although we hold a pro se litigant to the same standard as an attorney, ¶ 12 (App. 1999), we nevertheless prefer to decide each case on its merits rather than to dismiss on procedural grounds, Adams v. Valley Nat.
Houseopoly LLC v. Sky Boles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Houseopoly LLC v. Sky Boles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
English, III v. Gantz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
English, III v. Gantz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
A pro per litigant, however, “is held to the same familiarity with court procedures and the same notice of statutes, rules, and legal principles as is expected of a lawyer.” ¶ 12 (App. 1999); see also Kelly v. NationsBanc Mortg.
Best v. Nieblas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Best v. Nieblas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Gonzalez-Gunter v. Gunter 471 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Gonzalez-Gunter v. Gunter 471 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶14 but that decision is inapposite.
Taraska v. Taraska Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Taraska v. Taraska Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
state/des v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
state/des v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Pruett v. Beletz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Pruett v. Beletz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See ARCAP 13(a)(6), (b)(1); n.5, ¶ 14 (App. 2007) (Appellate courts “will not consider argument[] posited without authority.”); ¶ 12 (App. 1999) (holding a pro se litigant to the same standard as an attorney).
Heroyan-Hamayak v. Hamayak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Heroyan-Hamayak v. Hamayak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
4 ¶ 21 (App. 1999) (holding the party claiming a child is harmed by a parent’s adulterous cohabitation bears the burden of proving it with competent evidence).
Melissa D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Melissa D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶34 Though Mother is pro per by choice, she is held to the same standard as a lawyer, ¶ 12 (App. 1999), and she has failed to provide any citations to the record to justify her factual contentions, see ARCAP 13(a)(5).
Camboni v. Golden Hills Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Camboni v. Golden Hills Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See ARCAP 13(a)(6), (a)(7)(A), (b)(1); ¶ 12 (App. 1999) (pro se litigant is held to the same standard as an attorney).
Hogan v. O'hara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hogan v. O'hara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶¶ 19-21, 23 (App. 1999) (concluding the personal belief that a mother's adulterous cohabitation has a detrimental effect on her children is not competent evidence of harm) (citation omitted).
Bennett v. Federal Express Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Bennett v. Federal Express Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Johnson v. Provoyeur Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Johnson v. Provoyeur Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In the absence of a finding that Mother’s decision had, by the time of trial, affected the children’s best interests, the question of her motivation was simply irrelevant.1 -72, ¶¶ 19-25 (App. 1999) (holding that court abused its discretion by finding that mother’s adulterous cohabitation with boyfriend harmed the children when no evidence showed that they were harmed).
D'Ambrosio v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
D'Ambrosio v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Myrick v. Maloney 333 P.3d 818 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Myrick v. Maloney 333 P.3d 818 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
& n.4, & n.4 (App. 1999).
Cook v. Losnegard 265 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Cook v. Losnegard 265 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
452 n. 9, ¶ 101, , 1147 n. 9 (2004); ¶ 12 , (holding a pro per litigant to the same standard as an attorney).
State of Arizona v. Jaren Scott Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Jaren Scott Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
See, -12, -38 (1972); see also 36 C.J.S.
In Re the Marriage of Williams 200 P.3d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
In Re the Marriage of Williams 200 P.3d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
notice of statutes and local rules.”
Thomas v. Thomas 49 P.3d 306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Thomas v. Thomas 49 P.3d 306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Kelly v. Nationsbanc Mortgage Corp. 17 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Kelly v. Nationsbanc Mortgage Corp. 17 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000