DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mead v. Holzmann, 8 P.3d 407.

32 citing documents.

  • Toller v. Toller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Toller v. Toller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Hykes v. Peak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Hykes v. Peak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶18 The superior court calculated child support in compliance with the Arizona Child Support Guidelines (“Guidelines”), which “establish a standard of support for children consistent with their reasonable needs and the ability of parents to pay by providing a formula for calculation of child support based, in significant part, on the parties’ gross incomes.” ¶ 5 (App. 2000); see also A.R.S.
  • Moye v. Moye Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Moye v. Moye Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    The Guidelines “establish a standard of support for children consistent with their reasonable needs and the ability of parents to pay by providing a formula for calculation of child support based, in significant part, on the parties’ gross incomes.” ¶ 5 (App. 2000) (citing Guidelines §§ 1, 6-11).
  • Curto v. Curto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Curto v. Curto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Milinovich v. Womack 343 P.3d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Milinovich v. Womack 343 P.3d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Hanson v. Whetten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Hanson v. Whetten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    criteria are met”); n.5, ¶ 14, n.5 (App. 2000) (“The Guidelines mandate a deviation .
  • Dekker v. Dekker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Dekker v. Dekker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    n.3, ¶ 5, n.3 (App. 2000).
  • Jimenez v. state/ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Jimenez v. state/ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶ 4, (interpretation of Arizona Child Support Guidelines is a question of law the appellate court reviews de novo).
  • Patterson v. Patterson 248 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Patterson v. Patterson 248 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • East v. Matthews 213 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • East v. Matthews 213 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Maximov v. Maximov 205 P.3d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Maximov v. Maximov 205 P.3d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Hetherington v. Hetherington 202 P.3d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Hetherington v. Hetherington 202 P.3d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    Although we will not disturb a court’s award of child support absent an abuse of its discretion, see In re Marriage of Robinson & Thiel, , 331 ¶ 5, we will review its “interpretation of the Guidelines de novo as a question of law.” , 220 ¶ 4
  • Guerra v. Bejarano 133 P.3d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • Guerra v. Bejarano 133 P.3d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • Clay v. Clay 92 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Clay v. Clay 92 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Marriage of McNutt v. McNutt 49 P.3d 300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Marriage of McNutt v. McNutt 49 P.3d 300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • In Re Marriage of Robinson and Thiel 35 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • In Re Marriage of Robinson and Thiel 35 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    (interpretation of Guidelines and whether pretax dollars are included in gross income reviewed de novo); , (issue of whether capital gains is included in gross income when calculating child support is question of law).