DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pridgeon v. Superior Court, 655 P.2d 1.

148 citing documents.

  • Grubb v. Thraikill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Grubb v. Thraikill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Moreover, if affidavits filed in connection with a petition to modify are in direct opposition, “the court may not conduct a trial by affidavit, attempting to weigh the credibility of the opposing statements.” (internal quotations omitted); 468, ¶¶ 14, 19-20 (App. 2014) (concluding the family court violated a parent’s due process rights when it “recognized that credibility was central to the issue before it but expressly rejected the parties’ efforts to testify, choosi
  • Laura Cruz v. Robert Garcia 377 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • Laura Cruz v. Robert Garcia 377 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    1959); -82, -6 (1982) (rejecting “‘trial by affidavit’” and requiring hearing when pleadings are in “direct[] .
  • Downum v. Downum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Downum v. Downum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Pridgeon v. Superior Court (LaMarca), (holding court may consider prior circumstances in determining whether change has occurred); -44 (App. 1987) (same).
  • Grimsland v. Jarrin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Grimsland v. Jarrin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Wild v. Wild Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Wild v. Wild Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Boatley v. Mixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Boatley v. Mixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Pridgeon v. Superior Court (LaMarca)
  • Walker v. Sinikova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Walker v. Sinikova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (determining court did not abuse its discretion by denying a hearing and explaining trial court has “necessarily wide discretion” to determine whether there is adequate cause for a hearing and that appellate court will only reverse if “no reasonable judge w
  • Thompson v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Thompson v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    (recognizing that the significance of subsequent changes in circumstances “need not be determined in a vacuum” (citation omitted)).
  • Nicholas v. Nicholas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Nicholas v. Nicholas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Miller v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Miller v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    3 MILLER v. MILLER Decision of the Court does the court reach the question of whether a change in custody would be in the child's best interest.” Pridgeon v. Superior Court (LaMarca), (citations omitted); ¶ 15, (same); ¶ 11, (holding a substantial change in joint physical custody constitutes a change in custody requi
  • Santillan v. Keeney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Santillan v. Keeney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Arballo v. Orona-Hardee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Arballo v. Orona-Hardee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    (“In considering a motion for change of custody, 4 ARBALLO v. ORONA-HARDEE Decision of the Court the court must initially determine whether a change of circumstances has occurred since the last custod
  • Volk v. Brame 333 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Volk v. Brame 333 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    In such a case, the court must hold a hearing.” , cf. Orme Sch.
  • Stevens v. Yohannes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Stevens v. Yohannes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “In considering a motion for change of custody, the court must initially determine whether a change of circumstances has occurred since the last custody order.” Pridgeon v. Superior Court (LaMarca)
  • Sahlin v. Hon fridlund-horne/hartfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Sahlin v. Hon fridlund-horne/hartfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Christopher K. v. Markaa S. 311 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Christopher K. v. Markaa S. 311 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    Pridgeon v. Superior Court (LaMarca)
  • Reid v. Reid 213 P.3d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Reid v. Reid 213 P.3d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    ily court with a necessary “baseline” against which to measure any future petitions by either party based on “changed circumstances.” , (“To change a previous custody order, the court must determine whether there has been a material change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child.” ( , )); see also Anderson v. Anderson, 14 Ariz.App.
  • Owen v. Blackhawk 79 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Owen v. Blackhawk 79 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    ¶ 16 “To change a previous custody order, the court must determine whether there has been a material change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child.” , ( , ).
  • In Re the Marriage of Diezsi 38 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • In Re the Marriage of Diezsi 38 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    539; , (quoting UMDA § 410 cmt.); Richards v. Superior Court, 22 Ariz.App.
  • DePasquale v. Superior Court 890 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • DePasquale v. Superior Court 890 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Pollock v. Pollock 889 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Pollock v. Pollock 889 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    Marley v. Spaulding, 10 Ariz.App.
  • Canty v. Canty 874 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Canty v. Canty 874 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Hendricks v. Mortensen 735 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • Hendricks v. Mortensen 735 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987