Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lopez v. Lopez, 609 P.2d 579.

28 citing documents.

TRIFECTA v. CT INVESTMENTS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
TRIFECTA v. CT INVESTMENTS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“The intention of the court must be determined from all parts of the judgment and words and clauses should 4 TRIFECTA v. CT INVESTMENTS et al. Decision of the Court be construed according to their natural and legal import.”
Krenzen v. Katz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Krenzen v. Katz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Cohen, 215 Ariz. at 66, ¶¶ 10-11; In re Marriage of Johnson & Gravino, 231 Ariz. at 233, ¶ 17 ().
Young v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Young v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Furthermore, we must construe the court's intention from all parts of the judgment, and, "[i]f possible, a construction will be adopted that supports the judgment, rather than one that destroys it," Title Ins.
Thompson v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Thompson v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kent v. Carter-Kent 332 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kent v. Carter-Kent 332 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Anaya v. Anaya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Anaya v. Anaya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“The intention of the court must be determined from all parts of the judgment .
Johnson v. Gravino 293 P.3d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Johnson v. Gravino 293 P.3d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
MOTZER Dba RLM DESIGNS v. ESCALANTE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
MOTZER Dba RLM DESIGNS v. ESCALANTE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
(“The intention of the court must be determined from all parts of the judgment and words and clauses should be construed according to their natural and legal import.”).
Marriage of MacMillan v. Schwartz 250 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Marriage of MacMillan v. Schwartz 250 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
See Richards, 137 Ariz. at 226 , 669 P.2d at 1003 (holding termination of spousal maintenance cannot be based on the anticipation that a party will earn income in the future); , (social security benefits actually received may be considered income, but wife’s social security benefits could not be attributed to husband’s income because he neither received them nor had a right to).
COHEN v. FREY, Fka COHEN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
COHEN v. FREY, Fka COHEN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Stine v. Stine 880 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Stine v. Stine 880 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Matter of Estate of Patterson 805 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Shaw v. Quaintance 805 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Matter of Estate of Patterson 805 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
on which the personal representative relies.
Shaw v. Quaintance 805 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
on which the personal representative relies.
Brevick v. Brevick 628 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Brevick v. Brevick 628 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
The only reported opinion in Arizona which deals with a support award of a percentage of the payer’s