Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Neal v. Neal, 570 P.2d 758.

126 citing documents.

Vogue v. Maleknia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Vogue v. Maleknia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶7 Because neither party requested findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 82(A), “we are constrained by the presumption that the Superior Court ‘found every fact necessary to support the judgment, and such presumptive findings must be sustained if the evidence on any reasonable construction justified it.’” (citations omitted).
Dekker v. Dekker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Dekker v. Dekker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Boyle v. Boyle 290 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Boyle v. Boyle 290 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 16 Finally, the record does not support Husband’s , the $50 award was an improper attempt to retain jurisdiction over the parties by awarding a nominal amount of spousal maintenance.
Marriage of Birt v. Birt 96 P.3d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Marriage of Birt v. Birt 96 P.3d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
-93 , -61 (1977) (spouse must qualify for spousal maintenance at the time of dissolution).
GARDEN LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Madigan 62 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
GARDEN LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Madigan 62 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In re CVR 1997 Irrevocable Trust, ¶ 16
Marriage of Gerow v. Covill 960 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Marriage of Gerow v. Covill 960 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Community Guardian Bank v. Hamlin 898 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Community Guardian Bank v. Hamlin 898 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Berryhill v. Moore 881 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Berryhill v. Moore 881 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Ziggy’s Opportunities, Inc. v. I—10 Industrial Park Developers, -07 , -84 (App.1986).
Marriage of Flynn v. Rogers 834 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1992
Marriage of Flynn v. Rogers 834 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1992
In Re the Marriage of Thorlin 746 P.2d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
In Re the Marriage of Thorlin 746 P.2d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
While finding no circumstances in that particular case to reopen the decree of dissolution, the Court in DeGryse recognized that the Act returned the law to its pre-McCarty state under Van Loan v. Van Loan, supra and Neal v. Neal, [ , ] with respect to the division of military retirement benefits upon divorce.
Rowe v. Rowe 744 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Rowe v. Rowe 744 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Ziggy's Opportunities, Inc. v. I-10 Industrial Park Developers 730 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Ziggy's Opportunities, Inc. v. I-10 Industrial Park Developers 730 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Standage v. Standage 711 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Standage v. Standage 711 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Edsall v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 693 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1984
Edsall v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 693 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1984
which held that military retirement pay is community property to the extent that such property is earned through community effort.
Thomas v. Thomas 690 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Thomas v. Thomas 690 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Grand Real Estate, Inc. v. Sirignano 676 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Grand Real Estate, Inc. v. Sirignano 676 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Porter, supra; Hueg v. Sunburst Farms (Glendale) Mutual Water and Agricultural Co., , Ellingson, supra .
Cockrill v. Cockrill 676 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Cockrill v. Cockrill 676 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
De Gryse v. De Gryse 661 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1983
De Gryse v. De Gryse 661 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1983
wherein this court ruled that the portion of military retirement pay attributable to the effort of the community is deemed community property.
In Re the Marriage of Hinkston 653 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In Re the Marriage of Hinkston 653 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Cisneros v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 660 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Cisneros v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 660 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Master Records, Inc. v. Backman 652 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1982
Master Records, Inc. v. Backman 652 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1982
The pertinent facts, viewed in the manner most favorable to uphold the judgment, , are as follows.
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
Villasenor v. Villasenor 657 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Villasenor v. Villasenor 657 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
United Leasing, Inc. v. Commonwealth Land Title Agency of Tucson, Inc. 656 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
United Leasing, Inc. v. Commonwealth Land Title Agency of Tucson, Inc. 656 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Trollope v. Koerner, 21 Ariz.App.
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS-4130 647 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS-4130 647 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
420, 422 , , (on appeal, the court will assume that the trial court found every fact necessary to support its judgment and must affirm if any reasonable construction of the evidence justifies the decision).