DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite O'Hair v. O'Hair, 508 P.2d 66.

79 citing documents.

  • Matter of Estate of Johnson 630 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
    that the essential elements of an inter vivos gift are that the donor, before death, manifest a clear intent to give to the party claiming as donee full possession and control of the property.
  • Leskovsky v. Chapman 630 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
    The trial court cited and apparently relied on language in O’Hair v. O’Hair, , that the essential elements of an inter vivos gift are that the donor, before death, manifest a clear intent to give to the party claiming as donee full possession and control of the property.
  • United Bank v. Mesa N. O. Nelson Co. 590 P.2d 1384 Ariz. 1979
  • United Bank v. Mesa N. O. Nelson Co. 590 P.2d 1384 Ariz. 1979
    We have said: “No principles are better settled in Arizona than, first, that the duty of a reviewing court begins and ends with the inquiry whether the trial court had before it evidence which might reasonably support its action viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the findings, and, second, that the reviewing court will not weigh conflicting evidence on appeal.” O’Hair v. O’Hair
  • Grant v. Grant 581 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • Grant v. Grant 581 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    The wife relies principally upon O’Hair v. O’Hair
  • Matter of Estate of Condry 574 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Matter of Estate of Condry 574 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Provinzano v. Provinzano 570 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Provinzano v. Provinzano 570 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Neely v. Neely 563 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Neely v. Neely 563 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    The essential elements of a gift inter vivos are “that the donor manifest a clear intent to give to the party claiming as donee and give to the latter before death full possession and control of the property (emphasis ours).” O’Hair v. O’Hair
  • Safley v. Bates 548 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Safley v. Bates 548 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    any rule of construction or presumption provided in this Act applies to instruments executed and multiple-party accounts opened before the effective date unless there is a clear indication of a contrary intent.” Appellant’s reliance on O’Hair v. O’Hair, , is misplaced.
  • Noble v. Noble 546 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Noble v. Noble 546 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    We agree, that under the authority of O’Hair v. O’Hair, , where separate funds are placed in a joint checking account, no presumptions arise that the owner of the separate funds made a gift of one-half of the funds to his or her spouse.
  • Elkins v. Vana 541 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • Elkins v. Vana 541 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • Batesole v. Batesole 535 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Batesole v. Batesole 535 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    as tenants in common, or as tenants by the entirety, the court may in the same action, on its own initiative or on petition of either party, order division of such property in the manner provided by title Í2, chapter 8, article 7.” , and O’Hair v. O’Hair
  • Castillo v. Industrial Commission 520 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Castillo v. Industrial Commission 520 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
    In view of this statutory provision for continuing trial court jurisdiction, the Arizona Supreme Court in O’Hair v. O’Hair, , held as follows : “However, because the Legislature has provided, by A.R.S.
  • Warren v. Meyers Ex Rel. Judge 516 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Warren v. Meyers Ex Rel. Judge 516 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    See O’Hair v. O’Hair, , , cert.
  • Burkhardt v. Burkhardt 510 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1973
  • Burkhardt v. Burkhardt 510 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1973
    In O’Hair v. O’Hair, , this Court held that a trial court retains jurisdiction in divorce actions on the issue of child care under A.R.S.
  • Myrland v. Myrland 508 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • Myrland v. Myrland 508 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • Becchelli v. Becchelli 508 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1973