14631-PR Precedential Processed

Kosidlo v. Kosidlo

Arizona Supreme Court · Filed December 20, 1979 · 607 P.2d 1

The holding in the court’s own words

We hold that the facts as stated by the Court of Appeals do not show an abandonment of the cross-appeal.

View full opinion text ↓

Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.

Cited by

Emma Spring v. Timothy R. Bradford Ariz. 2017
Spring v. Bradford 388 P.3d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Higinio Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Trani 26 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Toth v. Toth 946 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1997
State v. Rasch 935 P.2d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
Styers v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF MOHAVE 779 P.2d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Givens 778 P.2d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Martin v. Martin 752 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1988
State v. Johnson 745 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1987

all 19 citing documents »

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

125 Ariz. App. 32 not in our corpus
Kosidlo v. Kosidlo 607 P.2d 15

Opinion text

PER CURIAM: Richard C. Kosidlo brought this appeal seeking a review of certain provisions of a decree of dissolution, and his former wife, Carrol J. Kosidlo, cross-appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We accepted review. Opinion of the Court of Appeals, 125 Ariz.App. 32 , 607 P.2d 15 (App.1979) disapproved in part. We hold that the facts as stated by the Court of Appeals do not show an abandonment of the cross-appeal. So much of the opinion as relates to the cross-appeal is disapproved, and the record in this cause is ordered returned to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the cross-appeal on its merits.