Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Harris v. Harris, 991 P.2d 262.

36 citing documents.

In Re the Marriage of McCulloch 546 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
In Re the Marriage of McCulloch 546 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Agreements between parties in family court, like other contracts, “are to be read in light of the parties’ intentions as reflected by their language and in view of all circumstances; if the intention of the parties is clear from such a reading, there is no ambiguity.”
Christoff v. Christoff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Christoff v. Christoff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶9 Under Arizona law, a property separation agreement is a contract, and it is to be given a reasonable construction “so as to accomplish the intention of the parties.” ¶ 15 (App. 1999).
Sembower v. Sembower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sembower v. Sembower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
v. Figueroa, ¶ 9 (App. 2009), as reflected in the contract’s language, ¶ 15 (App. 1999).
Saxton v. Berkner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Saxton v. Berkner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Camargo v. Camargo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Camargo v. Camargo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Foltin v. Foltin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Foltin v. Foltin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶9 Agreements between spouses, like other contracts, “are to be read in light of the parties’ intentions as reflected by their [contract] language and in view of all circumstances; if the intention of the parties is clear from such a reading, there is no ambiguity.” ¶ 15 (App. 1999)
Sandra Howell v. John Howell 361 P.3d 936 Ariz. 2015
Sandra Howell v. John Howell 361 P.3d 936 Ariz. 2015
¶ 13, for example, the court held that Mansell does not bar the family court from ordering the veteran to reimburse the ex-spouse for a reduced share of MRP.
Fowler v. Fowler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Fowler v. Fowler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Additionally, agreements between parties in family court, like other contracts, “are to be read in light of the parties’ intentions as reflected by their [contract] language and in view of all circumstances; if the intention of the parties is clear from such a reading, there is no ambiguity.” ¶ 15
Merrill v. Merrill 284 P.3d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Merrill v. Merrill 284 P.3d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
at 408, ¶¶ 23-24 , 36 P.3d at 756 ; ¶ 13 , (federal law did not bar former spouse from seeking reimbursement from military retiree who waived retirement benefits to receive disability pay); , (“An employee spouse cannot defeat the nonemployee s
Powers v. GUARANTY RV, INC. 278 P.3d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Powers v. GUARANTY RV, INC. 278 P.3d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Chopin v. Chopin 232 P.3d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Chopin v. Chopin 232 P.3d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Under Arizona law, contracts “are to be given a reasonable construction” and “read in light of the parties’ intentions as reflected by their language and in view of all circumstances.” ¶ 15
Gersten v. Gersten 219 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Gersten v. Gersten 219 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Estate of Lamparella 109 P.3d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In Re Estate of Lamparella 109 P.3d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
It is to be given, just like any other contract, a reasonable construction “so as to accomplish the intention of the parties.” ¶ 15
Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc. 111 P.3d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc. 111 P.3d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Lemons v. Showcase Motors, Inc. 88 P.3d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Lemons v. Showcase Motors, Inc. 88 P.3d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 15 , (citations omitted) (stating that contracts must be read in light of the parties’ intentions as reflected by their language and in view of all circumstances).
Arizona Society of Pathologists v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 38 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Arizona Society of Pathologists v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 38 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Danielson v. Evans 36 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Danielson v. Evans 36 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
2023 , 104 L.Ed.2d 675 (1989); , , cert.
Guminski v. THE ARIZONA STATE VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINING BOARD 33 P.3d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Guminski v. THE ARIZONA STATE VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINING BOARD 33 P.3d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001