DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cockrill v. Cockrill, 601 P.2d 1334.

101 citing documents.

  • Olson v. Olson, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Olson v. Olson, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    may become community property as a result of the work effort of the community.”
  • Femiano v. Maust 463 P.3d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Femiano v. Maust 463 P.3d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    149 Ariz. at 249; see also Honnas, 133 Ariz. at 40 (describing the scope of the community lien as the share of enhanced value attributable to the community contribution); (“[P]rofits, which result from a combination of separate property and community labor, must be apportioned accordingly.”); (noting that the measure of the community’s share is the increase in value due to the community’s contribution).
  • Menghini v. Menghini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Menghini v. Menghini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    (“We emphasize, however, that the separate property of the spouse remains separate.
  • Hefner v. Hefner 456 P.3d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Hefner v. Hefner 456 P.3d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    But the statutory presumption that all property acquired during the marriage is community property is both “fundamental to Arizona community property law,” and “strong,” ¶ 9 (App. 2016) ().
  • Butler v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Butler v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    § 25–211(A) (providing that, with certain exceptions, “[a]ll property acquired by either husband or wife during the marriage is the community property of the husband and wife”)
  • Kern v. Kern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Kern v. Kern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶16 “The profits of separate property are either community or separate in accordance with whether they are the result of the individual toil and application of a spouse or the inherent qualities of the [property] itself.“
  • In Re the Marriage of Foster 376 P.3d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • In Re the Marriage of Foster 376 P.3d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    To overcome that presumption, the spouse maintaining the property was acquired by that spouse as a “gift, devise or descent,” § 25-211(A)(1), and is, thus, separate property, “has the burden of establishing the separate character of the property by clear and convincing evidence.” (applying community-property presumption to gift of stock to husband from his mother during marriage).
  • Tutora v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Tutora v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    -92, -87 (App. 1995); see also A.R.S.
  • Krenzen v. Katz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Krenzen v. Katz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Stewart v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Stewart v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Ramsay v. WHEELER-RAMSAY 232 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Ramsay v. WHEELER-RAMSAY 232 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    Property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be community, “and the spouse seeking to overcome the presumption has the burden of establishing a separate character of the property by clear and convincing evidence.” , ( , ).
  • Rueschenberg v. Rueschenberg 196 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Rueschenberg v. Rueschenberg 196 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • In Re Marriage of Pownall 5 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • In Re Marriage of Pownall 5 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    (increase in the value of separate property during marriage that results from community effort should be apportioned between the separate property of the owner and the community property of *582 the spouses).
  • Marriage of Roden v. Roden 949 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Marriage of Roden v. Roden 949 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    any increase in the value of separate property during marriage as the result of the work effort of the community should be apportioned between the separate property of the owner and the community property of *411 the spouses.
  • Bianco v. Patterson 768 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • Bianco v. Patterson 768 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    Thomas v. Thomas, supra.
  • Marriage of Nardini v. Nardini 414 N.W.2d 184 Minn. 1987
  • 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
  • Mitchell v. Mitchell 732 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1987
  • Mitchell v. Mitchell 732 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1987
  • In Re the Marriage of Cupp 730 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • In Re the Marriage of Cupp 730 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Davis v. Davis 716 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • Davis v. Davis 716 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
    The facts necessary to a , and need not be repeated here.
  • Honnas v. Honnas 648 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1982
  • Honnas v. Honnas 648 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1982
  • Holby v. Holby 638 P.2d 1359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • Holby v. Holby 638 P.2d 1359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • Potthoff v. Potthoff 627 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981