DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Oppenheimer v. Oppenheimer, 526 P.2d 762.

28 citing documents.

  • Brucklier v. Brucklier 516 P.3d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Brucklier v. Brucklier 516 P.3d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    (Fault “should only be considered to the extent that there are excessive or abnormal expenditures, destruction, concealment or fraudulent disposition of community, joint tenancy and other property held in common.”); (Hays, J. dissenting) (The legislature’s enactmen
  • Murrell v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Murrell v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    § 25-319(B); (fault may only be considered in awarding spousal maintenance under A.R.S.
  • Marriage of Fuentes v. Fuentes 97 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Marriage of Fuentes v. Fuentes 97 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    Fault may only be considered in awarding spousal maintenance or child support if there is “[e]xcessive or abnormal expenditures, destruction, concealment or fraudulent disposition of community, joint tenancy and other property held in common.”
  • Rainwater v. Rainwater 869 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Rainwater v. Rainwater 869 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    161 Ariz. at 322 , 778 P.2d at 1218 ; , (burden of seeking modification of an award of spousal maintenance may be placed on either party, in the discretion of the trial court).
  • Valladee v. Valladee 718 P.2d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Valladee v. Valladee 718 P.2d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Malecky v. Malecky 713 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • Malecky v. Malecky 713 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    While it is true that where there is a conflict in the evidence and there is reasonable evidence to support the judgment of the trial court, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s judgment, , we do not believe that rule to applies here.
  • In Re Marriage of Foster 608 P.2d 785 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • In Re Marriage of Foster 608 P.2d 785 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    The award of a greater share of the community assets in this case as a substitute for spousal maintenance undesirably precludes future modification of maintenance payments if the condition of the parties changes, A.R.S.
  • In Re the Marriage of Furimsky 595 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1979
  • In Re the Marriage of Furimsky 595 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1979
    and Batesole v. Batesole, 24 Ariz.App.
  • 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
  • In Re the Marriage of Furimsky 595 P.2d 177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • In Re the Marriage of Furimsky 595 P.2d 177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    5 It does not appear that the ques *391 tions of choice of law were comprehensively presented to the Court in that case
  • Czarnecki v. Czarnecki 600 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • Czarnecki v. Czarnecki 600 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    ” , we held that the statute cannot be given retroactive effect when the result would be to destroy vested rights.
  • Lindsay v. Lindsay 565 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Lindsay v. Lindsay 565 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    Of similar import is the discussion in a more recent decision applying the post-1973 statutory provisions, , which, while recognizing that encouraging the wife to seek employment is a worthy purpose, stated that a judgment could not be based upon “mere hopes and speculative expectations”.
  • 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
    541 , , and Myrland v. Myrland, 19 Ariz.App.
  • Burton v. Burton 531 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • Burton v. Burton 531 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975