DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Jurek v. Jurek, 606 P.2d 812.

59 citing documents.

  • Barbara Sowards v. Tommy Sowards Ariz. 2023
  • Barbara Sowards v. Tommy Sowards Ariz. 2023
  • Labarge v. Abdullahi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Labarge v. Abdullahi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    Notably, on which Hefner relied.
  • Schuler v. Sharma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Schuler v. Sharma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    (holding that compensation for personal injuries to a spouse are separate property, but compensation for medical expenses and lost wages are community property).
  • 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
    ¶7 The superior court held that all of Husband’s injury awards were community assets because he had “not sustained his burden as to proving what portion of the [injury settlements] should be considered sole and separate property.” Wife concedes that “damages for pain and suffering belong to the injured spouse as his or her separate property,”
  • Helland v. Helland 337 P.3d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Helland v. Helland 337 P.3d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    However, the Arizona Supreme Court has rejected a narrow construction of the word “acquired” and stated it must be applied “in the light of the uses and purposes of community property and the establishment of community right.”
  • Davies v. Beres 233 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Davies v. Beres 233 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Gersten v. Gersten 219 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Gersten v. Gersten 219 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    (holding husband’s compensation for personal injuries belong to him as separate property although compensation for medical expenses and lost wages is community property).
  • Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 111 P.3d 1003 Ariz. 2005
  • Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 111 P.3d 1003 Ariz. 2005
    This includes not alone the right to determine the facts, but to apply or not, as the jury sees fit, the law of contributory negligence as a defense.”) (citations omitted) (emphasis added), , see also Estate of Reinen, 198 Ariz. at 288, ¶ 18 , 9 P.3d at 319 (“A jury ‘is free to find in favor of the plaintiff even though the court ordinarily would find as a matter of law that the plaintiff ...
  • Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 46 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2002
  • Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 46 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2002
    II, 188 Ariz. at 260, 934 P.2d at 1352; (art. XVIII, § 5 gives a jury not only “the right to determine the facts, but to apply or not, as the jury sees fit, the law of contributory negligence 11 as a defense.”), P.2d 812 (1980).
  • Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd. 9 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2000
  • Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd. 9 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2000
  • American Express Travel Related Services Co. v. Parmeter 925 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • American Express Travel Related Services Co. v. Parmeter 925 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
    Relying primarily on § 25-211 , First Data contends that because Mr. Par-meter recovered the attorney’s fee award during marriage and because it was not acquired by “gift, devise or descent,” it is community property.
  • Hatcher v. Hatcher 933 P.2d 1222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Hatcher v. Hatcher 933 P.2d 1222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    for his assertion that the disability benefits received for his personal injuries were separate property.
  • McNeel v. McNeel 818 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • McNeel v. McNeel 818 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
    C.f., , , (1980) (compensation for injuries to personal well-being is separate property).
  • Lynch v. Lynch 791 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • Lynch v. Lynch 791 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    § 25-211; , Flowers v. Flowers, 118 Ariz. at 580 , 578 P.2d at 1009 .
  • 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
    Bugh v. Bugh, 125 Ariz. at 192 , 608 P.2d at 331 ( , ).
  • Martin v. Martin 752 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Martin v. Martin 752 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Koelsch v. Koelsch 713 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1986
  • Koelsch v. Koelsch 713 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1986
    we held that recoveries for personal injuries were separate property since a spouse brings the right to personal security into the marriage.
  • Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 708 P.2d 742 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 708 P.2d 742 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    see also, de Funiak and Vaughn, Principles of Community Property § 82 (2d ed. 1971).
  • Van De Loo v. Van De Loo 346 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    it held that while certain damages recoverable in a tort action constituted community property ( i.e., lost wages and medical expenses), compensation for injuries to one's personal well-being ( i.e., pain and suffering) are the injured spouse's separate property.
  • Spillios v. Green 671 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Spillios v. Green 671 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    If Mrs. Green had lived, her claim for injuries to her person would have been her own separate property, , which could not have been defeated by Mr. Green's contributory negligence.
  • Villasenor v. Villasenor 657 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • Villasenor v. Villasenor 657 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    The rationale for that decision, however
  • Fernandez v. Romo 646 P.2d 878 Ariz. 1982
  • Fernandez v. Romo 646 P.2d 878 Ariz. 1982
    This rule was changed somewhat, however, , which held that while special damages represented by lost wages and medical expenses are injuries to the community, the injuries themselves are personal to the spouse.
  • Tippit v. Lahr 646 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • Tippit v. Lahr 646 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    the court held that recovery on a claim for personal injuries incurred during marriage is the separate property of the injured spouse to the extent that it represents compensation for injuries to “personal well-being.” Under prior law, the entirety of such a recovery was regarded as community pr
  • Brumbaugh v. Pet Inc. 628 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981