Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Auman v. Auman, 653 P.2d 688.
- Fernandez v. Houseopoly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Fernandez v. Houseopoly
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(noting “[p]robably no words are more inaccurately used in the books than ‘void’ and ‘voidable’” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); (noting “the term ‘void’ is often misused”).
- Van Camp v. Van Camp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Van Camp v. Van Camp
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(“Void judgments are those rendered by a court which lacked jurisdiction.”).
- Sanchez v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Sanchez v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Quijada v. Quijada 437 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Quijada v. Quijada
437 P.3d 876
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(holding that legal error in a dissolution decree did not affect its validity “but only made it subject to correction by a timely appeal”) ().
- Blaser v. Kaiser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
Blaser v. Kaiser
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Accordingly, we must presume the transcript would support the court’s exercise of discretion, n.1 (1986) ( -43 (1982)), and find no error.
- Phillips v. Cabrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
Phillips v. Cabrera
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
n.1 (1986) (-43 (1982), ).
- Knight v. Knight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Knight v. Knight
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
n.1 (1986) (-43 (1982), ).
- Jones v. Bell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Jones v. Bell
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
3 JONES v. BELL Decision of the Court (1986) (-43 (1982), ).
- Phoenix v. Cortes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Phoenix v. Cortes
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
n.1, n.1 (1986) (“Without a record we must presume that the trial court properly exercised its discretion and that there was substantial evidence in the complete record to support the findings of the trial court.”) (-43, We note that effective January 15, 2015, because of the adopted rule changes to the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, this situation will no longer defeat our jurisdiction.
- Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Atkinson v. McIndoo
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
262, 265 n.1 (1986) (“Without a record we must presume that the trial court properly exercised its discretion and that there was substantial evidence in the complete record to support the findings of the trial court.”) (-43, -91 (1982), -76, -93 (1969)).
- Smith v. Smith 330 P.3d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
Smith v. Smith
330 P.3d 371
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
First, void can mean a decree that is invalid, or a nullity, from the beginning.
- In Re Marriage of Dougall 316 P.3d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
-
In Re Marriage of Dougall
316 P.3d 591
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
The word “void” often is misused, as is the word “jurisdiction,” Marvin Johnson, P.C.
- Rowland v. Great States Insurance 20 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
- Rowland v. Great States Insurance 20 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
- Taylor v. Jarrett 959 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
-
Taylor v. Jarrett
959 P.2d 807
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
1690 , 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978) (child support); , (division of marital property).
- Porter v. Estate of Pigg 856 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1993
-
Porter v. Estate of Pigg
856 P.2d 796
Ariz. 1993
They are, however, erroneous, , and their use is disapproved.
- Porter v. Estate of Pigg 854 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- Porter v. Estate of Pigg 854 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- Plattner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 812 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
- Plattner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 812 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
- State v. Richey 774 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1989
-
State v. Richey
774 P.2d 1354
Ariz. 1989
(trial court’s findings indicated the presence of all 3 sub § (C) elements).
- Martin v. Martin 752 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1988
- Martin v. Martin 752 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1988
- 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
- Renner v. Kehl 722 P.2d 262 Ariz. 1986
-
Renner v. Kehl
722 P.2d 262
Ariz. 1986
Visco v. Universal Refuse Removal Company, supra.
- State v. Superior Court of Pima County 721 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
- State v. Superior Court of Pima County 721 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
- In Re Marriage of Benge 726 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
- In Re Marriage of Benge 726 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
- De Noyelles v. De Noyelles 703 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
-
De Noyelles v. De Noyelles
703 P.2d 584
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
His present attempt to relitigate the judgment of the trial court is barred by the res judicata effect of the original divorce decree.”
- Adams v. Valley Nat. Bank of Ariz. 678 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
- Adams v. Valley Nat. Bank of Ariz. 678 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984