DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re the Marriage of Rowe, 573 P.2d 874.

38 citing documents.

  • Whalen v. Whalen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Whalen v. Whalen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Howie v. Howie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Howie v. Howie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    (holding that court’s finding that 22 HOWIE v. HOWIE Decision of the Court unemployed spouse “would be employable within three years” did not justify modification of spousal maintenance award and noting that “wh
  • Felder v. Felder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Felder v. Felder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    based on facts which could have been raised’ in the previous proceeding.” McClendon, 243 Ariz. at 402-03, ¶ 15 (second emphasis omitted) (quoting In 6 ).
  • Woodward v. Woodward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Woodward v. Woodward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    McClendon, 243 Ariz. at 402-03, ¶ 15.
  • Downum v. Downum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Downum v. Downum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    (husband was precluded from challenging a default decree's spousal maintenance award absent a change of circumstances from the time the default was entered); McClendon, 243 Ariz. at 402–03, ¶ 15 (res judicata prevents the party from obtaining a modification based on facts which could have been raised in th
  • Birnstihl v. Birnstihl 416 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Birnstihl v. Birnstihl 416 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    based on facts which could have been raised' in the previous proceeding"); see also In re Marriage of Rowe , , 475-76, , 875-76 (1978) ; Hornbaker v. Hornbaker , , 578
  • McClendon v. McClendon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • McClendon v. McClendon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    (husband was precluded from challenging a default decree’s spousal maintenance award absent a change of circumstances from the time the default was entered).
  • Senter v. Senter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Senter v. Senter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Reed v. Reed 740 P.2d 963 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • Reed v. Reed 740 P.2d 963 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    (employability is not a changed circumstance until it occurs).
  • 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
  • Ruskin v. Ruskin 738 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • Ruskin v. Ruskin 738 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • Chaney v. Chaney 699 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Chaney v. Chaney 699 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    As is apparent from the Arizona Supreme Court’s opinion in , what may occur three years in the future affecting employment is pure speculation and should not be considered in establishing the present rights of the parties relating to spousal maintenance.
  • Craig v. Superior Court in and for Pima County 687 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • Craig v. Superior Court in and for Pima County 687 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • Marquez v. Marquez 647 P.2d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • Marquez v. Marquez 647 P.2d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • Jorgensen v. Jorgensen 640 P.2d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • Jorgensen v. Jorgensen 640 P.2d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
    overruled on other grounds, , Linton v. Linton, 17 Ariz.App.
  • Brevick v. Brevick 628 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • Brevick v. Brevick 628 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
    (modification of spousal maintenance).
  • Beck v. Jaeger 604 P.2d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Beck v. Jaeger 604 P.2d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Scott v. Scott 591 P.2d 980 Ariz. 1979
  • Scott v. Scott 591 P.2d 980 Ariz. 1979
    1 , overruled on other grounds, , see Linton supra.
  • Hodges v. Hodges 578 P.2d 1001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • Hodges v. Hodges 578 P.2d 1001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978