Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Auman v. Auman, 653 P.2d 688.

52 citing documents.

Lange v. Self Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(declining to consider a transcript when it was “not timely filed and therefore was not available for appellee’s use prior to the time her answering brief was due.”).
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