Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Board of Regents v. Harper, 495 P.2d 453.

46 citing documents.

In Re the Marriage of quijada/dominguez 550 P.3d 153 Ariz. 2024
In Re the Marriage of quijada/dominguez 550 P.3d 153 Ariz. 2024
Wiltbank v. Wiltbank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Wiltbank v. Wiltbank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Danko v. Danko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Danko v. Danko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(noting that a person may have only one domicile at a time).
Woods v. McCarty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Woods v. McCarty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(domicile requires physical presence and intent to remain permanently and a person may have only one domicile at a time).
monroe/pirtle v. Gagan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
monroe/pirtle v. Gagan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Callies v. United Heritage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Callies v. United Heritage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“Domicile is primarily a state of mind combined with actual physical presence in the state.”).
Kromko v. Arizona Board of Regents 165 P.3d 168 Ariz. 2007
Kromko v. Arizona Board of Regents 165 P.3d 168 Ariz. 2007
P.2d 453 (1972) (upholding Board’s ability to differentiate 4 suit under A.R.S.
Kromko v. Arizona Board of Regents 146 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Kromko v. Arizona Board of Regents 146 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
J.D.S. v. Franks 893 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1995
J.D.S. v. Franks 893 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1995
In re the Appeal in Coconino County Juvenile Action No. J-12187 885 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In re the Appeal in Coconino County Juvenile Action No. J-12187 885 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Joseph’s Hospital v. Maricopa County, 142 * , (county responsible for illegal alien’s medical expenses); , (divorce); , (tuition).
Thielking v. Kirschner 859 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Thielking v. Kirschner 859 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Maricopa County 688 P.2d 986 Ariz. 1984
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Maricopa County 688 P.2d 986 Ariz. 1984
However, we have generally treated the statutory usage of the term “residence” as carrying the same connotations as the term “domicile.” , (divorce); , (tuition); , 123 P. 312, 314 (1912).
Bowen v. Graham 684 P.2d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Bowen v. Graham 684 P.2d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
In this context, “domicile” has been defined as “primarily a state of mind.”
Tanner Companies v. Arizona State Land Department 688 P.2d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Tanner Companies v. Arizona State Land Department 688 P.2d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. *188 Superior Court of Orange County, 12 Cal.3d 237 , 115 Cal.Rptr.
Clark v. Clark 603 P.2d 506 Ariz. 1979
Clark v. Clark 603 P.2d 506 Ariz. 1979
Theoretically, one who goes from one state to another with the actual intention to remain and make his home in the second state, acquires a domicile in the second state immediately, * * *.”
Webster v. State of Arizona Board of Regents 599 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Webster v. State of Arizona Board of Regents 599 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Ernst v. Arizona Board of Regents 579 P.2d 1099 Ariz. 1978
Ernst v. Arizona Board of Regents 579 P.2d 1099 Ariz. 1978
Rosenberg v. Arizona Board of Regents 578 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1978
Rosenberg v. Arizona Board of Regents 578 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1978
Chapp v. HIGH SCH. DIST. NO. 1 OF PIMA CTY. 574 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Chapp v. HIGH SCH. DIST. NO. 1 OF PIMA CTY. 574 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Ernst v. Arizona Board of Regents 579 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Ernst v. Arizona Board of Regents 579 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Houghton v. Piper Aircraft Corporation 542 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1975
Houghton v. Piper Aircraft Corporation 542 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1975
O'HERN v. Bowling 505 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1973
O'HERN v. Bowling 505 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1973
Maricopa County v. Superior Court, County of Maricopa 498 P.2d 461 Ariz. 1972
Maricopa County v. Superior Court, County of Maricopa 498 P.2d 461 Ariz. 1972

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by