Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hurt v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF ARIZ., 601 P.2d 1329.

31 citing documents.

Kimberly McLaughlin v. Hon. jones/suzan McLaughlin Ariz. 2017
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Hon. jones/suzan McLaughlin Ariz. 2017
Consequently, since § 25-814(A)(1)’s enactment, we have observed that the purpose of establishing paternity is to “reduce the number of individuals forced to enter the welfare rolls.” ¶ 14 (1999); (noting that the purpose of paternity statutes is “to provide financial support for the child”).
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Suzan McLaughlin 382 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Suzan McLaughlin 382 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
As our supreme court observed decades ago, the purpose of paternity statutes “appears to be to provide financial support for the child from the natural parent.”
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 295 P.3d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 295 P.3d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
That trouble with the word has been with us for a long time[.]”); , (finding that the statutory phrase “children or parents” should be interpreted in the conjunctive rather than the disjunctive); , (“It is a well-established rule that a court may in the interpretation of statutes, where ambi
EDONNA v. Heckman 253 P.3d 627 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
EDONNA v. Heckman 253 P.3d 627 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
In Re Estate of Winn 237 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Estate of Winn 237 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Co.), -86 , -71 (1970), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Hurt v. Superior Court (Bookbinder), , )).
Aranda v. Cardenas, M.D. Nes Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Aranda v. Cardenas, M.D. Nes Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
In Hurt v. Superior Court, 124 P.2d 1329 (1979), our supreme court declined to require a separate paternity proceeding to establish paternity in a wrongful death action.
City of Phoenix v. Harnish 150 P.3d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
City of Phoenix v. Harnish 150 P.3d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
(interpreting “children or parents” in wrongful death statute in the conjunctive rather than disjunctive).
Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
(recognizing surviving adult child’s right to attend all depositions and participate in damage-related procedures and noting that “[i]n a wrongful death action the only statutory plaintiff may be a surviving spouse, or a personal representative, parent, or guardian”); , , (“[B]oth a surviving parent and surviving child, may recover for the wrongful death if either has been damaged by the death.”).
Williams v. Superior Court 820 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Williams v. Superior Court 820 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
DISCUSSION At the outset, we acknowledge that the petitioner has a right to participate in all facets of this litigation relating to dam *470 ages, , , (the right to counsel and the right to participate in litigation stemming from a wrongful death action extends to beneficiaries over the issue of damages), and where the interests of the beneficiaries conflict.
Katz v. Filandro 739 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Katz v. Filandro 739 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
the court held that a posthumously born child of the decedent was included within the term “children” for *604 whose benefit a wrongful death action may be brought.
Summerfield v. Superior Court, Maricopa Cty. 698 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1985
Summerfield v. Superior Court, Maricopa Cty. 698 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1985
Austin v. City of Scottsdale 684 P.2d 151 Ariz. 1984
Austin v. City of Scottsdale 684 P.2d 151 Ariz. 1984
Similarly, , this Court answered affirmatively the question of whether both a surviving parent and a surviving child of the deceased could be proper parties under the wrongful death statute.
Lake Havasu Community Hospital, Inc. v. Arizona Title Insurance 687 P.2d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
LAKE HAVASU COM. HOSP. v. Ariz. Title Ins. 687 P.2d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
LAKE HAVASU COM. HOSP. v. Ariz. Title Ins. 687 P.2d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Lake Havasu Community Hospital, Inc. v. Arizona Title Insurance 687 P.2d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Ballard v. Lawyers Title of Arizona, 27 Ariz.App.
Anderson v. Wilson 680 P.2d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Anderson v. Wilson 680 P.2d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Rule 9(a), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by