DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Scott v. Scott, 591 P.2d 980.

56 citing documents.

  • Hawkins v. Hawkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    “The 4 HAWKINS v. HAWKINS Decision of the Court burden of proving changed circumstances is on the party seeking modification.”
  • Bennett v. Bennett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Bennett v. Bennett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    “The burden of proving changed circumstances is on the party seeking modification.”
  • Van Camp v. Van Camp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Van Camp v. Van Camp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    His petition contained one summary allegation of purported changed circumstances: a reference to unidentified “health challenges,” meaning “[his] employment and career is no longer certain.” Father’s “estimation of an expected, but as yet unrealized, decrease in income is speculative evidence at best and is not sufficient to sustain a finding of substantial changed circumstances.”
  • Fogerson v. Cobb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Fogerson v. Cobb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Watson v. Watson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Watson v. Watson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Obiekea v. Obiekea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Obiekea v. Obiekea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    -96 (1979), Udoamaka asserts that the changed circumstances of a former spouse who is not paying maintenance or support are material in determining whether a substantial and continuing change in circumstances is shown.
  • Felder v. Felder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Felder v. Felder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Woodward v. Woodward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Woodward v. Woodward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Howitt v. Wrinkle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Howitt v. Wrinkle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    To be clear, the party seeking modification bears the burden of proving changed circumstances by comparison with the circumstances existing at dissolution, and the question whether circumstances have changed lies with the family court, Schroeder, 161 Ariz. at 323.
  • Morrow v. Morrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Morrow v. Morrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    “The burden of proving changed circumstances is on the party seeking modification.”
  • 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
    See Scott v. Scott , , 494, , 982 (1979) ("To be relevant evidence for a modification, a changed circumstance must occur subsequent to the divorce."); McClendon v. McClendon , , 443-44, ¶ 15, , 442 (App. 2017) (for spousal maintenance modification " res judicata prevents a party 'from obtaining a mo
  • McClendon v. McClendon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • McClendon v. McClendon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    “The burden of proving changed circumstances is on the party seeking modification.” ().
  • Schickner v. Schickner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Schickner v. Schickner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    “The burden of proving changed circumstances is on the party seeking modification.” (citation omitted).
  • Haddad v. Geegieh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Haddad v. Geegieh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Senter v. Senter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Senter v. Senter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    “The burden of proving changed circumstances is on the party seeking modification.”
  • Strait v. Strait 224 P.3d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Strait v. Strait 224 P.3d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    (finding that “[a] transformation of ...
  • Jenkins v. Jenkins 156 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Jenkins v. Jenkins 156 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    (finding that “[a] transformation of ...
  • Marriage of Muchesko v. Muchesko 955 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Marriage of Muchesko v. Muchesko 955 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    (finding temporary or speculative change in earnings is insufficient to support a modification).
  • Burnette v. Bender 908 P.2d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Burnette v. Bender 908 P.2d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Van Dyke v. Steinle 902 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Van Dyke v. Steinle 902 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    (future anticipated changes in- income cannot support modification).
  • Smith v. Mangum 747 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • Smith v. Mangum 747 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
  • Fletcher v. Fletcher 671 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Fletcher v. Fletcher 671 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Richards v. Richards 669 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Richards v. Richards 669 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • 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