DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite DePasquale v. Superior Court, 890 P.2d 628.

83 citing documents.

  • Grubb v. Thraikill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Grubb v. Thraikill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    at *3, ¶ 16 ( ¶ 18 (App. 2016), ¶ 15 (App. 2012), ).
  • Laura Cruz v. Robert Garcia 377 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • Laura Cruz v. Robert Garcia 377 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    s finding.” see Heidbreder, 284 P.3d at 892 (directing parties to file financial affidavits after hearing at which court raised issue of child support sua sponte “was not a proper substitute for providing the parties a full opportunity to be meaningfully heard” on the issue); (trial court errs by “changing custody without a hearing and without the aggrieved parent’s consent”).
  • Rivera v. Drake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Rivera v. Drake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See DePasquale v. Superior Court (Thrasher), (the court must not “delegate a judicial decision to an expert witness” and must “exercise independent judgment.”).
  • Walker v. Sinikova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Walker v. Sinikova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Law P. 91(D)(6) (granting family court discretion “without argument or hearing” to “determine whether a custody hearing should be granted”); (“[T]he trial court must screen the petition and supporting affidavits to decide whether they state adequate grounds to subject the parties to a full hearing.
  • Chapa v. Housman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Chapa v. Housman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Eastman v. Eastman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Eastman v. Eastman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Ct., (holding the court can consider expert opinion but must exercise independent judgment – “[t]he best interests of the child 7 EASTMAN v. EASTMAN Decision of the Court .
  • Santillan v. Keeney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Santillan v. Keeney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Shifflett v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Shifflett v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (stating that a court may consider expert opinion in making a child- custody determination, but it must exercise independent judgment in custody matters); see also A.R.S.
  • Dean v. Culp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Dean v. Culp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See DePasquale v. Superior Court (Thrasher), (explaining that a trial court must exercise independent judgment in making a custody decision and may not delegate its judicial decision to an expert).
  • Stevens v. Yohannes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Stevens v. Yohannes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “[T]he responsibility to make the findings is the court’s alone.” DePasquale v. Superior Court (Thrasher), Nold, 232 Ariz. at 273-74 (same).
  • Christopher K. v. Markaa S. 311 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Christopher K. v. Markaa S. 311 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    DePasquale v. Superior Court (Thrasher), , (“The best interests of the child ...
  • Nold v. Nold 304 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Nold v. Nold 304 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    See DePasquale v. Superior Court (Thrash *274 er)
  • In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • Lucille v. Dodge 5 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Lucille v. Dodge 5 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    ¶25 , Dodge next argues that the Hendrix Order inappropriately vests authority in an expert to make decisions that should be reserved to the trial court.
  • In re Harry B. 971 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • In re Harry B. 971 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    -36 , -31 (1995) (In awarding custody, the court must weigh the evidence and exercise independent judgment; it cannot allow a psychologist to decide what is in the child’s best interest.).
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County of Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592 897 P.2d 742 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County of Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592 897 P.2d 742 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Brown 905 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995