DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Clark v. Curran, 575 P.2d 310.

22 citing documents.

  • Stock v. Barton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Adoption of B- 6355 & H-533, ¶ 5 (1999).
  • Amber H. v. Dcs, E Al. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Adoption of B-6355, (“In considering the evidence it is well settled that an appellate court will not substitute its own opinion for that of the trial court.” (citation omitted)).
  • Tony J. v. Dcs, A.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Adoption of B-6355, (“In considering the evidence it is well settled that an appellate court will not substitute its own opinion for that of the trial court.” (citation omitted)).
  • Maurice N. v. Dcs, M.N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Adoption of B-6355, (“In considering the evidence it is well settled that an appellate court will not substitute its own opinion for that of the trial court.” (citation omitted)).
  • Joshua W. v. Dcs, F.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Adoption of B-6355, (“In considering the evidence it is well settled that an appellate court will not substitute its own opinion for that of the trial court.” (citation omitted)).
  • Jurnee H. v. Dcs, N.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Adoption of B-6355, (“In considering the evidence it is well settled that an appellate court will not substitute its own opinion for that of the trial court.” (citation omitted)).
  • Tabatha T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Adoption of B-6355, (“In considering the evidence it is well settled that an appellate court will not substitute its own opinion for that of the trial court.” (citation omitted)).
  • Phyllicia C. v. Dcs, M.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Adoption of B-6355, (“In considering the evidence it is well settled that an appellate court will not substitute its own opinion for that of the trial court.” (citation omitted)).
  • Lilian G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Adoption of B-6355, (“In considering the evidence it is well settled that an appellate court will not substitute its own opinion for that of the trial court.” (citation omitted)).
  • Jennifer S. v. Dcs, Z.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Adoption of B-6355, (“In considering the evidence it is well settled that an appellate court will not substitute its own opinion for that of the trial court.” (citation omitted)).
  • In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-2698 806 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    Pima County, Adoption B-6355 and H-533, , , cert.
  • State v. Fowler 752 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Fowler 752 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. A-27789 680 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1984
    Cf. In re Appeal in Pima County, Adoption of B-6355 and H-533
  • United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    Matter of Appeal in Pima County, Adoption of B-6355, , , cert.
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. A-25525 667 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    An appellate court will not substitute its own opinion for that of the trial court, , cert.
  • In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. A-26961 660 P.2d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    In re Appeal in Pima County, Adoption of B-6355 and H-533
  • In Re the Appeal in Cochise County Juvenile Action No. 5666-J 650 P.2d 459 Ariz. 1982
    See In re Appeal in Pima County, Adoption of B-6355 and H-533, , vacated, , , cert.
  • Matter of Juvenile No. J-2255 613 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    See Arizona Appellate Handbook § 6.1 (Supp. 1979) (citing In re the Appeal in Pima County, Adoption of B-6355 and H-533, , ).
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Actions Nos. J-86384 & JS-2605 594 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    However, based upon the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in In re the Appeal in Pima County, Adoption of B-6355 and H-533, , which, in our tentative opinion, set aside the holdings of this court in the termination cases, this court advised both parties that the present appeal was governed by the statutory provisions on termination 2 rather than by the Juvenile Rules, that a written order was therefore required, that t
  • Matter of Appeal in Pima County Etc. 575 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1978
  • Matter of Appeal in Pima County Etc. 575 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1978
    In the Matter of the APPEAL IN PIMA COUNTY, ADOPTION OF B-6355 AND H-533.