DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Weaver v. Weaver, 643 P.2d 499.

54 citing documents.

  • Goodhope v. Goodhope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Goodhope v. Goodhope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    § 25-318(A), (E) (2008); ¶ 17 (App. 2014) (noting Weaver's use of "the term 'jurisdiction' in a broader, now antiquated, sense actually referring to courts' authority under the specific controlling statute rather than subject-matter jurisdiction").
  • Budziszewski v. budziszewski/campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Budziszewski v. budziszewski/campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    In addition, the court had “no jurisdiction to grant a money judgment against one spouse for damage to the separate property of the other spouse in a dissolution proceeding.”
  • Cunnington v. Hon fisk/cunnington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Cunnington v. Hon fisk/cunnington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    (holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to grant a money judgment against one spouse for damage to the separate property of the other spouse in a dissolution proceeding).
  • Nitsch v. Klavuhn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Nitsch v. Klavuhn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    (“[T]he divorce court, in pronouncing a divorce decree, has no authority to compel either party to 5 NITSCH v. KLAVUHN Decision of the Court divest himself or herself of [t]itle to separate property.”); (“[The superior court’s] jurisdiction with respect to separate property is limited to assigning to each spouse his or her separate property .
  • Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    (“Title 25 defines the boundaries of a dissolution court’s jurisdiction, and the court may not exceed its jurisdiction even when exercising its equitable powers.”); ¶ 6 (App. 2008); -36, ¶ 7 (App. 2002).
  • Hernandez v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Hernandez v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Danko v. Danko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Danko v. Danko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Wright v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Wright v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Eans-Snoderly v. Snoderly 473 P.3d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Eans-Snoderly v. Snoderly 473 P.3d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    “In Arizona, dissolution of marriage proceedings are creatures of statute, and jurisdiction to decide such cases is conferred on the courts by the legislature.” In re Marriage of 4 ¶ 8 (2007); (“Title 25 defines the boundaries of a dissolution court’s jurisdiction, and the court may not exceed its jurisdiction even when exercising its equitable powers.”).
  • Garlan v. Garlan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Garlan v. Garlan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Hill v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Hill v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    § 25-318(A) (“[T]he court shall assign each spouse’s sole and separate property to such spouse.”); (holding that the superior court’s jurisdiction over separate property in a dissolution proceeding is limited by statute to “assigning to each spouse his or her separate property .
  • Menghini v. Menghini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Menghini v. Menghini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    “Despite the application of equitable standards in a dissolution proceeding, it remains a statutory action, and the trial court has only such jurisdiction as is granted by statute.”
  • Hammett v. Hammett 453 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Hammett v. Hammett 453 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶16 Distributing property and debt after marriage is a “statutory action, and the [superior] court has only such jurisdiction as is granted by statute.”
  • Jimenez v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Jimenez v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See Gerow, 192 Ariz. at 17, ¶¶ 33-36
  • Guislan v. Helmus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Guislan v. Helmus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Sonoran Peaks, LLC v. Maricopa County 340 P.3d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Sonoran Peaks, LLC v. Maricopa County 340 P.3d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • McNeil v. Hoskyns 337 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • McNeil v. Hoskyns 337 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • In Re the Marriage of Thorn 330 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • In Re the Marriage of Thorn 330 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    (“Title 25 defines the boundaries of a dissolution court’s jurisdiction, and the court may not exceed its jurisdiction even when exercising its equitable powers.”).
  • Thomas v. Thomas 205 P.3d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Thomas v. Thomas 205 P.3d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    § 25-311 (2007) (“The superior court is vested with original jurisdiction to hear and decide all matters arising pursuant to this chapter[.]”); , (“Title 25 defines the boundaries of a dissolution court’s jurisdiction, and the court may not exceed its jurisdiction even when exercising its equitable powers.”); , (“Every power that the superior court exercises in a dissolu
  • State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Waldren 171 P.3d 1214 Ariz. 2007
  • State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Waldren 171 P.3d 1214 Ariz. 2007
  • Victor v. Victor 866 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Victor v. Victor 866 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Martin v. Martin 752 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1988
  • Martin v. Martin 752 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1988
  • Anonymous Wife v. Anonymous Husband 739 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1987
  • Anonymous Wife v. Anonymous Husband 739 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1987
    As such, “the guiding principle is that every power exercised by a court in a divorce proceeding must find its source in the relevant statutory framework.” Id.
  • Sample v. Sample 731 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Sample v. Sample 731 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • 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