Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Marriage of Medlin v. Medlin, 981 P.2d 1087.

34 citing documents.

Labarge v. Abdullahi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Labarge v. Abdullahi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Even assuming this issue is not waived, ¶ 6 (App. 1999), the record reflects that the court ruled on each of Wife’s discovery motions—albeit apparently not always to Wife’s complete satisfaction—and allowed her to conduct financial discovery throughout the case.
McDougall v. McDougall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
McDougall v. McDougall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Lopez v. Scimone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Lopez v. Scimone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Servin v. Servin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Servin v. Servin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Stuart v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Stuart v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 6 (App. 1999) (“An issue raised for the first time after trial is deemed to have been waived.”).
Burney v. Huntimer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Burney v. Huntimer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Silva v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Silva v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Rychlik v. Sodergren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Rychlik v. Sodergren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Herrera v. Rivero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Herrera v. Rivero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Boyilla v. Boyilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Boyilla v. Boyilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bankers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bankers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶9 “An issue raised for the first time after trial is deemed to have been waived.” ¶ 6, (citation omitted).
Reade v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Reade v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 16, (appellate court reviews for an abuse of discretion).4 D. Judicial Misconduct ¶14 Finally, King argues the court acted improperly by “bullying” and “intimidating” him at the July 2009 status conference.
Ghosoph v. Kottmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ghosoph v. Kottmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
While we do not address issues raised for the first time on appeal, ¶ 6 (App. 1999) (“An 4 GHOSOPH v. KOTTMANN Decision of the Court trial in an attempt, according to Husband, to conceal the fraudulent nature of the fax.
Robinson v. Hutchins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Robinson v. Hutchins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State ex rel. Department of Economic Security v. Demetz 130 P.3d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State ex rel. Department of Economic Security v. Demetz 130 P.3d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
In re Mortenson’s Estate, , , 1Í 9
Flanders v. Maricopa County 54 P.3d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Flanders v. Maricopa County 54 P.3d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
“An issue raised for the first time after trial is deemed to have been waived.” ¶ 6