DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hatch v. Hatch, 547 P.2d 1044.

70 citing documents.

  • Lee v. Lee 649 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • Lee v. Lee 649 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • In Re Marriage of Foster 608 P.2d 785 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • In Re Marriage of Foster 608 P.2d 785 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • Buttram v. Buttram 596 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Buttram v. Buttram 596 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Bender v. Bender 597 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • Bender v. Bender 597 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    We are convinced that the requirement of a substantially equal apportionment of the community estate, , has been met.
  • In Re Marriage of Fong 589 P.2d 1330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • In Re Marriage of Fong 589 P.2d 1330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    Petitioner’s “vested rights” argument is derived from the Arizona Supreme Court’s , which stated: “We hold that the court’s unequal property distribution was arbitrary, unreasonable and an unconstitutional deprivation of the appellant’s vested property interest in the community.” (Emphasis added.)
  • Baum v. Baum 584 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • Baum v. Baum 584 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    for the proposition that when the husband has management of the community property, he must pay for the wife’s litigation costs.
  • Czarnecki v. Czarnecki 600 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • Czarnecki v. Czarnecki 600 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • 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
    Sound discretion has been held to mean that, in the absence of sound reasons appearing in the record which justify a contrary result, the apportionment of the community estate upon dissolution must be substantially equal, , , ” The trial judge did not make a substantially equal disposition of the community property in this case, but rather awarded the entire community interest in the retirement and disability benefits to the husband.
  • Lindsay v. Lindsay 565 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Lindsay v. Lindsay 565 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    Sound discretion has been held to mean that, in the absence of sound reasons appearing in the record which justify a contrary result, the apportionment of the community estate upon dissolution must be substantially equal
  • Neal v. Neal 571 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • Neal v. Neal 571 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    the court’s discretion in such matters was recognized as very broad and not to be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.