DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Marriage of Pownall, 5 P.3d 911.

198 citing documents.

  • Walsh v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Walsh v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (allocation of debt in dissolution proceeding reviewed for clear abuse of discretion); ¶ 31, (spousal maintenance award reviewed for abuse of discretion).
  • 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
  • Hanson v. Whetten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Hanson v. Whetten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Miller v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Miller v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Michaelson v. Garr 323 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Michaelson v. Garr 323 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Davies v. Davies Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Davies v. Davies Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Rinegar v. Rinegar 290 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Rinegar v. Rinegar 290 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    ¶ 13 , (holding that fees may be awarded based on an income disparity regardless of poorer spouse’s ability to pay); ¶ 29 , (holding that a disparity in income supports a fee award even if the paying spouse did not act unreasonably).
  • Kimicata v. McGee 279 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Kimicata v. McGee 279 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    (citations omitted) (“[B]ecause a trial court and opposing counsel should be afforded the opportunity to correct any asserted defects before error may be raised on appeal, absent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.”); ¶ 27 , (husband waived argument superior court improperly failed to make findings of fact regarding award of attorneys’ fees because he did not raise the issue with the superior court).
  • NICKERSON v. GREEN VALLEY RECREATION, INC. 265 P.3d 1108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • NICKERSON v. GREEN VALLEY RECREATION, INC. 265 P.3d 1108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    Baptist Hosp., 179 Ariz. at 292-94, 877 P.2d at 1348-50 (trier of fact could find financial agreement procedurally unconscionable where signer executed document without his reading glasses, without explanation of documents, and while his wife suffered heart attack in emergency room); cf. In re Marriage of Pownall, 20 ¶¶ 6-13, -15 (App. 2000) (premarital agreement not procedurally unconscionable when wife knew purpose of agreement, was offered counsel, had opportunity to obtain business valuation
  • Hogan v. Washington Mutual Bank, N.A. 261 P.3d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Hogan v. Washington Mutual Bank, N.A. 261 P.3d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    583 n. 5, ¶ 25, , 917 n. 5 (App.2000).
  • Mangan v. Mangan 258 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Mangan v. Mangan 258 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    Nevertheless, "an applicant need not show both a financial -disparity and an unreasonable opponent in order to qualify for consideration for an award.” , 591 n. 1, ¶ 8, , 1050 n. 1 (App.2004) ( ¶¶ 27-29 , ).
  • 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
  • Davies v. Beres 233 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Davies v. Beres 233 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Ramsay v. WHEELER-RAMSAY 232 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Ramsay v. WHEELER-RAMSAY 232 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • 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
  • Reid v. Reid 213 P.3d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Reid v. Reid 213 P.3d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    This court also cited ¶ 27 , (citing Trantor), and Callanan v. Sun Lakes Homeowners’ Ass’n No. 1, Inc., , for the proposition that a failure to object to a trial court's lack of findings constitutes a waiver of that argument on appeal.
  • Marriage of Barnett v. Jedynak 200 P.3d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Marriage of Barnett v. Jedynak 200 P.3d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Malad, Inc. v. Miller 199 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Malad, Inc. v. Miller 199 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    583 n. 5, ¶ 25, , 917 n. 5 (App.2000).
  • Marriage of Bell-Kilbourn v. Bell-Kilbourn 169 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Marriage of Bell-Kilbourn v. Bell-Kilbourn 169 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    n.5, n.5 (App. 2000) (arguments raised for first time in reply brief are generally deemed waived).
  • Marriage of Alley v. Stevens 104 P.3d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • Marriage of Alley v. Stevens 104 P.3d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • 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
  • Hamblen v. Hamblen 54 P.3d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Hamblen v. Hamblen 54 P.3d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Banales v. Smith 26 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Banales v. Smith 26 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    (failure to object to lack of findings precludes resolution of issue on appeal); Callanan v. Sun Lakes Homeowners’ Ass’n No. 1, Inc., , (by failing to object to trial court, plaintiff “waived his right to urge the failure to [make cert