Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Smart v. Cantor, 574 P.2d 27.

38 citing documents.

Verdugo v. Hon Lang Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Verdugo v. Hon Lang Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
“[A] parent is entitled to due process whenever his or her custodial rights to a child will be determined by a proceeding.” (citation omitted).
Mahmood v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Mahmood v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶7 “[A] parent is entitled to due process whenever his or her custodial rights to a child will be determined by a proceeding.”
Daurio v. Daurio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Daurio v. Daurio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
“[A] parent is entitled to due process whenever his or her custodial rights to a child will be determined by a proceeding.” (citation omitted).
Hayden v. Lynch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Hayden v. Lynch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶9 A parent “is entitled to due process whenever his or her custodial rights to a child will be determined by a proceeding.”
Zandell v. Zandell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Zandell v. Zandell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“[A] parent is entitled to due process whenever his or her custodial rights to a child will be determined by a proceeding.”
Pacheco v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Pacheco v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“[A] parent is entitled to due process whenever his or her custodial rights to a child will be determined by a proceeding.”) (citing Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972)).
Moye v. Moye Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Moye v. Moye Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
of Dental Exam’rs, -07, ¶ 20 (App. 1999)); (citing Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 657 (1972)).
Laura Cruz v. Robert Garcia 377 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Laura Cruz v. Robert Garcia 377 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Sec., -40 (App. 2012), quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982); (“[A] parent is entitled to due process whenever his or her custodial rights to a child will be determined by a proceeding.”).
State v. Bean 851 P.2d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Bean 851 P.2d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Schilz v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA CTY. 695 P.2d 1103 Ariz. 1985
Schilz v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA CTY. 695 P.2d 1103 Ariz. 1985
(contract); , (child custody); see also, Barker v. Barker, 94 N.M.
Lofts v. Superior Court 682 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1984
Lofts v. Superior Court 682 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1984
Pridgeon v. Superior Court 655 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1982
Pridgeon v. Superior Court 655 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1982
1208 , 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972)
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. A-26961 660 P.2d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. A-26961 660 P.2d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Pima County Juvenile Action No. 18635 v. Fisher 610 P.2d 64 Ariz. 1980
Pima County Juvenile Action No. 18635 v. Fisher 610 P.2d 64 Ariz. 1980
Although habeas corpus is often used as a procedural device to bring child *431 custody matters before a court, , the circumstances presented by this petition are more properly considered for relief by special action.
Webb v. Charles 611 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Webb v. Charles 611 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
25-331(B)(2), , for the proposition that in a habeas corpus hearing dealing with child custody, the paramount concern is the best interest of the child.
Ibach v. Ibach 600 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Ibach v. Ibach 600 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Carlson v. Brown 576 P.2d 1387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Carlson v. Brown 576 P.2d 1387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
McNeal v. Mahoney 574 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1977
McNeal v. Mahoney 574 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1977
In our recent case, Smart v. Cantor et al., 117 Ariz. -, we determined that A.R.S.