DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Volk v. Brame, 333 P.3d 789.

182 citing documents.

  • Birnstihl v. Birnstihl 416 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Birnstihl v. Birnstihl 416 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    In such a case, the court must hold a hearing."); Volk v. Brame , , 467, 469, ¶¶ 16, 24, , 794, 796 (App. 2014) (a hearing where the parties were only permitted to submit documents to the court and neither party was permitted to testify provided "no adversarial check on the quality of the information that Mother provided to the court and upon which it relied to modify F
  • Nicaise v. Sundaram 418 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Nicaise v. Sundaram 418 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Volk v. Brame , , 466, 469, ¶¶ 14, 20-21, , 793, 796 (App. 2014).
  • Lopez v. Raygoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Lopez v. Raygoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 20 (App. 2014); ¶ 13 (App. 2010) (stating superior court has broad discretion over the management of a trial and may place time limitations on trial proceedings).
  • Stone v. Stone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Stone v. Stone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 1 (App. 2014) ("We hold that when the resolution of an issue before the court requires an assessment 3 Husband did not file an answering brief, and we could treat his failure as a confession of reversible error.
  • Felix v. Montes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Felix v. Montes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    -67, ¶¶ 14-18, -94 (App. 2014) (citations omitted) (holding court’s rejection of parties’ efforts to testify violated due process where credibility was central to the issue before the court).
  • Brenda D. v. Department of Child Safety 393 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Brenda D. v. Department of Child Safety 393 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    preserved the issue for our review.” ¶ 22, n.6 , (quoting State v. Martinez, 172 Ariz, 437, 440, 837 F.2d 1172 (App. 1992)).
  • Grubb v. Thraikill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Grubb v. Thraikill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Moreover, if affidavits filed in connection with a petition to modify are in direct opposition, “the court may not conduct a trial by affidavit, attempting to weigh the credibility of the opposing statements.” (internal quotations omitted); 468, ¶¶ 14, 19-20 (App. 2014) (concluding the family court violated a parent’s due process rights when it “recognized that credibility was central to the issue before it but expressly rejected the parties’ efforts to testify, choosing instead to rely on a ‘pa
  • Mortensen v. Mortensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Mortensen v. Mortensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶7 The family court “enjoys broad discretion to impose reasonable time limits.” ¶ 20, (internal quotations and citations omitted).
  • Okubena v. Montag Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Okubena v. Montag Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Jeff D. v. Department of Child Safety 367 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Jeff D. v. Department of Child Safety 367 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶15 however, Foster Parents argue due-process principles required the superior court to allow them to call the authors of the reports to testify about Child's 5 JEFF D., ERIKA D. v. DCS, L.W.
  • Murray v. Murray 367 P.3d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Murray v. Murray 367 P.3d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 14 (App. 2014) (due process requires court to hear testimony when making a finding that hinges on credibility).
  • Thompson v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Thompson v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    “In such a case, the court must hold a hearing.” Id.; ¶ 1, (holding that “when the resolution of an issue before the court requires an assessment of credibility, the court must afford the parties an opportunity to present sworn oral testimony”).
  • Bastian v. Endresen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Bastian v. Endresen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Shacknai v. Shacknai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Shacknai v. Shacknai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶19 P.3d 789 (App. 2014), in support of his argument that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing and the court could not simply rely on the submitted documents.
  • Michael v. Michael Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Michael v. Michael Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    468, ¶¶ 1, 20– 21, 795 (App. 2014) (holding that the court’s refusal to allow additional time beyond the originally-scheduled 15 minutes for an “evidentiary” hearing—regarding a material contested issue hinging on credibility—violated the parties’ due process rights).
  • Krenzen v. Katz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Krenzen v. Katz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    at 91, ¶ 29, 977 P.2d at 813; ¶ 22, (trial court should “remain sufficiently flexible in its allotment of time to preserve due process”).