Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ruhsam v. Ruhsam, 518 P.2d 576.

28 citing documents.

State v. Huskie 44 P.3d 161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Huskie 44 P.3d 161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
(age of majority is eighteen), modified on other grounds, , .
Guzman v. Guzman 854 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Guzman v. Guzman 854 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Appels-Meehan v. Appels 805 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Appels-Meehan v. Appels 805 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Esplendido Apartments v. Metropolitan Condominium Ass'n 778 P.2d 1221 Ariz. 1989
Esplendido Apartments v. Metropolitan Condominium Ass'n 778 P.2d 1221 Ariz. 1989
supplemented, , Carpenter v. Riley, 234 Kan.
Tande v. Bongiovanni 688 P.2d 1012 Ariz. 1984
Tande v. Bongiovanni 688 P.2d 1012 Ariz. 1984
modified on other grounds, , as holding contempt is unavailable.
Young v. Burkholder 690 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Young v. Burkholder 690 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
as supplemented in , the Arizona Supreme Court pointed out that incorporation of an agreement into a decree is sometimes done merely “to identify the agreement so as to render its validity res judicata in any subsequent action based upon it” rather than to make the a
Helber v. Frazelle 575 P.2d 1243 Ariz. 1978
Helber v. Frazelle 575 P.2d 1243 Ariz. 1978
where a post-nuptial agreement was “approved, confirmed, ratified and made a part of the decree” in which agreement the husband promised to pay $100.00 a month for each child until majority, we held that what was meant by “majority” in the agreement was to be determined from the intent
Helber v. Frazelle 575 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Helber v. Frazelle 575 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
In this Court’s opinion disposing of the special action proceedings in Savage , , supplemental opinion
Marshick v. Marshick 545 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Marshick v. Marshick 545 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Further, , supplemented, , the Supreme Court cited McNelis and Simpson as supporting: “.
Stanley v. Stanley 541 P.2d 382 Ariz. 1975
Stanley v. Stanley 541 P.2d 382 Ariz. 1975
modified, , has no application here.
Stanley v. Stanley 535 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Joy Enterprises, Inc. v. Reppel 537 P.2d 591 Ariz. 1975
Joy Enterprises, Inc. v. Reppel 537 P.2d 591 Ariz. 1975
Yaeger v. Yaeger 229 N.W.2d 137 Minn. 1975
Savage v. Thompson 523 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Savage v. Thompson 523 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
supplemental opinion , and State ex rel Cordova v. Cordova, 21 Ariz.App.
State Ex Rel. Cordova v. Cordova 520 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
State Ex Rel. Cordova v. Cordova 520 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
modified, , that Court stated: “A.R.S.