Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite McNeal v. Mahoney, 574 P.2d 31.

26 citing documents.

In Re the Marriage of quijada/dominguez 550 P.3d 153 Ariz. 2024
In Re the Marriage of quijada/dominguez 550 P.3d 153 Ariz. 2024
.” (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added)); (“The domicile of a minor child .
J.D.S. v. Franks 893 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1995
J.D.S. v. Franks 893 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1995
(noting distinction between lack of jurisdiction and non-exercise of jurisdiction)
Canty v. Canty 874 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Canty v. Canty 874 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(“We perceive it is the intent of the [UCCJA] to create a species of presumption or predilection in favor of the exclusive exercise of jurisdiction at the state of domicile.”); , (“Arizona courts do not have jurisdiction to alter a custody decree if the party to whom custody has been awarded is domiciled in another jurisdiction.”).
Matter of Guardianship of Mikrut 858 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Matter of Guardianship of Mikrut 858 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
the supreme court found that the requisite circumstances to suspend parental rights were not present.
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Oliver 741 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Oliver 741 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Maricopa County 688 P.2d 986 Ariz. 1984
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Maricopa County 688 P.2d 986 Ariz. 1984
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. A-27789 680 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1984
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. A-27789 680 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1984
Stansell v. SUPERIOR CT. IN AND FOR CTY., ETC. 607 P.2d 959 Ariz. 1980
Stansell v. SUPERIOR CT. IN AND FOR CTY., ETC. 607 P.2d 959 Ariz. 1980
and find nothing therein in conflict with our ruling here.
Both v. SUPERIOR CT., IN & FOR CTY. OF MOHAVE 590 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1979
Both v. SUPERIOR CT., IN & FOR CTY. OF MOHAVE 590 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1979
where a father who had been awarded custody of his daughter by the Texas court in a divorce proceeding delivered the child to the child’s grandparents in Pinal County, Arizona, pursuant to a stipulation in the decree providing for such temporary custody until the father established a new job and
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
The Arizona Supreme Court, however, has very recently endorsed the key principles stated in Graton that in child custody litigation “a distinction must be made between lack of jurisdiction and non-exercise of jurisdiction.” McNeal v. Mahoney, Ariz.
Matter of Appeal in Pima County Etc. 575 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1978
Clark v. Curran 575 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1978
Clark v. Curran 575 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1978
Matter of Appeal in Pima County Etc. 575 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1978
Smart v. Cantor 574 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1977
Smart v. Cantor 574 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1977
Graton v. Graton, 24 Ariz.App.