Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Warren v. Warren, 407 P.2d 395.
- Sample v. Sample 731 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
-
Sample v. Sample
731 P.2d 604
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
In support of his position husband relies on two retirement benefits cases: , P.2d 395 (1965).
- 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
- Carpenter v. Carpenter 722 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1986
- Carpenter v. Carpenter 722 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1986
- Mitchell v. Mitchell 732 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
- Mitchell v. Mitchell 732 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
- Carpenter v. Carpenter 722 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
-
Carpenter v. Carpenter
722 P.2d 298
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Opal rejects Sandra’s analysis, , , for the proposition that Everson established nothing new in Arizona law.
- Marriage of Garrett v. Garrett 683 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
- Marriage of Garrett v. Garrett 683 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
- Villasenor v. Villasenor 657 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
- Villasenor v. Villasenor 657 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
- In Re the Marriage of Kosko 611 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
-
In Re the Marriage of Kosko
611 P.2d 104
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Just as the post-dissolution earnings of a spouse are separate property, , so then it is logical that post-dissolution disability benefits are separate property.
- 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
The “trial court’s discretion in awarding alimony is beyond question.”
- Santa Maria v. Santa Maria 501 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
- Santa Maria v. Santa Maria 501 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
- Hofstra v. Hofstra 474 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
- Hofstra v. Hofstra 474 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
- Gage v. Gage 462 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
-
Gage v. Gage
462 P.2d 93
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
The trial court’s discretion in alimony matters is without cavil, , ; Kennedy v. Kennedy, supra.
- Aliprandini v. Aliprandini 455 P.2d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
- Aliprandini v. Aliprandini 455 P.2d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
- Hayne v. Hayne 449 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
-
Hayne v. Hayne
449 P.2d 633
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
and cases cited therein.
- Spring v. Spring 414 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
-
Spring v. Spring
414 P.2d 769
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
that a decree directing certain payments to a person not a party to the action was illegal and void.