DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 649 P.2d 291.

28 citing documents.

  • Carranza v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Carranza v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶13 ( P.2d 291, approved, P.2d 290 (1982)), which declined to apply a new United States Supreme Court case retroactively.
  • Panzino v. City of Phoenix 999 P.2d 198 Ariz. 2000
  • Panzino v. City of Phoenix 999 P.2d 198 Ariz. 2000
    For example, in Tippit, 132 Ariz. at 409 , 646 P.2d at 294 , the court held that “[t]he public policy against the assignment of personal injury claims does not outweigh the compelling societal interest in the finality of judgments.” And, , the court said, “‘[pjublic policy requires an end to litigation and even erroneous final judgments must be honored in order to continue the “well-ordered functioning of the judicial process.”’” Id.
  • Marriage of Flynn v. Rogers 834 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1992
  • Marriage of Flynn v. Rogers 834 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1992
    approved, , (holding that McCarty did not alter the res judicata consequences of a divorce decree that had become final before McCarty was filed).
  • Marriage of Schmidt v. Schmidt 763 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • Marriage of Schmidt v. Schmidt 763 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    where it had approved a decision of Division 2 of this court, , which held that retroactive application of McCarty would “flout the rule of res judicata.” The husband there had petitioned to reopen a decree of dissolution which became final prior to McCarty seeking to strike the portion of the decree which awarded his former wife a portion of his militar
  • Edsall v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 693 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1984
  • Edsall v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 693 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1984
    Phil contends that Arizona has long recognized the need for finality in family law cases and that changes in community property law do not alter the res judicata consequences of a , , approved , 649 *
  • Perez v. Industrial Commission 685 P.2d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Perez v. Industrial Commission 685 P.2d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
    (overruling United States Supreme Court decision, which held that federal law precludes state court from dividing military retirement pay when marriage dissolved, not retroactively applied to divorce judgment that became final before the overruling decision).
  • Edsall v. Superior Court 693 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • Edsall v. Superior Court 693 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    (Emphasis added) , , approved, , we held that McCarty did not alter the res judicata consequences of a divorce decree which was final before McCarty .
  • Todd v. Todd 670 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Todd v. Todd 670 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    This issue has subsequently been determined adversely to appellant’s , aff'd
  • Bischofshausen v. Pinal-Gila Counties Air Quality Control District 673 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Bischofshausen v. Pinal-Gila Counties Air Quality Control District 673 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    approved , , Arnold v. Knettle, 10 Ariz.App.
  • Richards v. Richards 669 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Richards v. Richards 669 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • De Gryse v. De Gryse 661 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1983
  • De Gryse v. De Gryse 661 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1983
    approved, , we held that McCarty did not alter the res judicata consequences of a divorce decree which was final before McCarty .
  • Portley v. Portley 657 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • Portley v. Portley 657 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • Budreau v. Budreau 658 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • Budreau v. Budreau 658 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • Rodriguez v. Rodriguez 649 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1982
  • Rodriguez v. Rodriguez 649 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1982
    From our review of the legal authorities, we agree with the ruling of the Court of Appeals; therefore, we approve the decision of the Court of Appeals ( , and vacate and set aside the order of the superior court.