Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lamb v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC., 621 P.2d 906.

50 citing documents.

Dorn v. Dorn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Dorn v. Dorn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Huver v. Huver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Huver v. Huver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“In the absence of a valid judgment, decree or order requiring one spouse to pay a fixed sum to the other spouse for child support, no such duty exists.”).
Morrow v. Morrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Morrow v. Morrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Mangis v. Ulmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mangis v. Ulmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
the modification cannot be made retroactive.” Lamb v. Superior Court (Prussinski)
State v. Fisher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fisher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“[A] judgment or order is still an effective and valid judgment or order unless and until it is set aside .
Sysco Arizona, Inc. v. Hoskins 330 P.3d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sysco Arizona, Inc. v. Hoskins 330 P.3d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
P. 54(a) (“‘Judgment’ as used in these Rules includes a decree and an order from which an appeal lies.”); , (stating that a “minute entry ...
Edwards v. Magnus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Edwards v. Magnus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
The filing with the clerk of the judgment constitutes entry of such judgment, and the judgment is not effective before such entry.” (noting 2 Prior to the filing of the motions to dismiss, Edwards filed a demand for a jury trial pursuant to A.R.S.
Pettit v. Pettit 189 P.3d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Pettit v. Pettit 189 P.3d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
403 n. 4, , 909 n. 4 (1980) (stating general rule that judgments rendered by a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction are void).
Guerra v. Bejarano 133 P.3d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Guerra v. Bejarano 133 P.3d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
STATE EX REL. DEPT. ECONOMIC SEC. v. Hayden 115 P.3d 116 Ariz. 2005
STATE EX REL. DEPT. ECONOMIC SEC. v. Hayden 115 P.3d 116 Ariz. 2005
("Since the duty to pay support does not exist unless a judgment, decree or order creates it, it follows that no duty exists if a valid order terminates the obligation.").
Smith v. Saxon 918 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Smith v. Saxon 918 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(in absence of valid judgment, decree or order requiring payment of fixed sum as child support, no such duty exists, notwithstanding statute imposing general duty on parents to support their children; it is valid judgment, decree or order that creates duty and governs its extent).
Kadera v. Superior Court 931 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Kadera v. Superior Court 931 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
See Lamb v. Supe *563 rior Court, , Kelly v. Kelly, 24 Ariz.App.
Martin v. Martin 893 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Martin v. Martin 893 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Guzman v. Guzman 854 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Guzman v. Guzman 854 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Marriage of Gore v. Gore 821 P.2d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Marriage of Gore v. Gore 821 P.2d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
County of San Diego v. Green 810 P.2d 622 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
County of San Diego v. Green 810 P.2d 622 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
While the absence of such a , , we have previously held that the inability of the former spouse to sue does not prevent a public entity from recovering public support furnished a child under the provisions of URE-SA.
Matter of Estate of Patterson 805 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Shaw v. Quaintance 805 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Matter of Estate of Patterson 805 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Shaw v. Quaintance 805 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Boulder County Department of Social Services ex rel. Harkreader v. Harkreader 791 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Boulder County Department of Social Services ex rel. Harkreader v. Harkreader 791 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
No Child Support Order Bruce argues that since no court has ordered him to pay child support, he has no duty to support his children
Ray v. Mangum 788 P.2d 62 Ariz. 1989
Ray v. Mangum 788 P.2d 62 Ariz. 1989
Howard v. Richardson 778 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Howard v. Richardson 778 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
402 n. 1, , 908 n. 1 (1980) (emphasis in original).
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. v. Pugliani 697 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1985
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. v. Pugliani 697 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1985
Estes v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR MARICOPA 672 P.2d 180 Ariz. 1983
Estes v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR MARICOPA 672 P.2d 180 Ariz. 1983
Bill by and Through Bill v. Gossett 647 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Bill by and Through Bill v. Gossett 647 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Dockery v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co., , Roberson v. Teel, 20 Ariz.App.
Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Meneghin 634 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1981
Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Meneghin 634 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1981
Lamb v. Superior Court, etc.