DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Myrland v. Myrland, 508 P.2d 757.

30 citing documents.

  • Borowsky v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Borowsky v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    -03 (1973) (fundamental requisites of a partnership were “intention, co-ownership of the business, community of interest, and community of power in administration.”).
  • Powers Steel v. Vinton Steel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Powers Steel v. Vinton Steel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    (noting when determining the existence or non-existence of a partnership, "the facts, circumstances, and most important, the intention of the parties control").
  • Nackard v. Nackard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Nackard v. Nackard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶6 The character of property is established at its acquisition, and property acquired by a spouse during marriage “by gift, devise or descent .
  • Altherr v. Altherr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Altherr v. Altherr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    § 29-1012; (recognizing that under previously applicable Uniform Partnership Act, which defined partnership as “an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit,” a “[l]ack of partnership documentation is not the critical factor as a partnership may be formed by an oral agreement”
  • Klien v. York Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Klien v. York Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    if the court rendered it without jurisdiction due to the lack of proper service.”) (citing Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc., ), and is therefore presumed from the court’s order, ( ).
  • Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Marriage of Roden v. Roden 949 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Marriage of Roden v. Roden 949 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Jolly v. Kent Realty, Inc. 729 P.2d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Jolly v. Kent Realty, Inc. 729 P.2d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni 694 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni 694 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • Arizona Feeds v. a & R ARGO, INC. 666 P.2d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Arizona Feeds v. a & R ARGO, INC. 666 P.2d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Baum v. Baum 584 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • Baum v. Baum 584 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • Moser v. Moser 572 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Moser v. Moser 572 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Neal v. Neal 570 P.2d 758 Ariz. 1977
  • Neal v. Neal 570 P.2d 758 Ariz. 1977
    vil Procedure, Rule 52(a), and the trial court did not, sua sponte, make such findings, we are constrained by the presumption that the Superior Court “found every fact necessary to support the judgment, and such presumptive findings must be sustained if the evidence on any reasonable construction justified it.” , -38 (1948)
  • Batesole v. Batesole 535 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Batesole v. Batesole 535 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Pettibone v. Pettibone 529 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Pettibone v. Pettibone 529 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
    He contends that property acquires its status at the time of acquisition, , and that since it was acquired as joint tenancy property the court could not award one party the whole, thereby divesting the other of title to the property.