DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Keller v. Keller, 671 P.2d 425.

26 citing documents.

  • Dyrek v. Dyrek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Dyrek v. Dyrek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    See Dyrek I, 1 CA-CV 23-0237, at *2, ¶ 9; ¶ 13 (App. 2007) (“[W]e determine that whether a separation agreement has merged is of no consequence in determining that the court can reopen its determination that a separation agreement is [or is not] unfair.” (citation modified)); (holding that in the absence of fraud or undue influence, parties to divorce are bound by their own agreements); (explaining that a property settlement agreement is valid if it is free from fraud, coercion, or undue influen
  • Oberg v. Oberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Oberg v. Oberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    We therefore vacate the Amended Decree and remand for further proceedings, unconstrained by the PNA.2 (“The court is not bound by any [post-nuptial] agreement and can, if it believes the agreement to be unfair or inequitable, reject or modify the agreement.”).
  • Buckholtz v. Buckholtz 435 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Buckholtz v. Buckholtz 435 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    See, e.g. , Breitbart-Napp v. Napp , , 79, ¶ 14, , 1029 (App. 2007) ; Cohen v. Frey , , 67, ¶ 14, , 487 (App. 2007) ; Sharp v. Sharp , , 210, , 309 (App. 1994), superseded on other grounds by rule as recognized in Hutki v. Hutki , , 43, , 808 (App. 2018) ; Keller v. Keller , , 448, , 426 (App. 1983).
  • Stone v. Stone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Stone v. Stone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Evers v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Evers v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Trkula v. Trkula Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Trkula v. Trkula Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Valer C. Austin v. Josiah T. Austin 348 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • Valer C. Austin v. Josiah T. Austin 348 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • 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
    But “[t]he parties to a divorce may, by agreement between themselves, settle and adjust all property rights growing out of the marital relation and, in the absence of fraud or undue influence, such an agreement is binding upon the parties.”
  • Marriage of Boncoskey v. Boncoskey 167 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Marriage of Boncoskey v. Boncoskey 167 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    § 25-317 (2000 & Supp.2006)
  • Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    The agreement is “binding upon the parties” if executed “in the absence of fraud or undue influence.”
  • COHEN v. FREY, Fka COHEN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • COHEN v. FREY, Fka COHEN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    § 25-317(D) (court must find separation agreement “not unfair” before setting forth its terms in decree); (court may reject property agreements if “unfair or inequitable”).
  • Esplendido Apartments v. Metropolitan Condominium Ass'n 778 P.2d 1221 Ariz. 1989
  • Esplendido Apartments v. Metropolitan Condominium Ass'n 778 P.2d 1221 Ariz. 1989
    Rule 59(m) is satisfied when “both parties and the appellate courts receive adequate notice of the grounds on which the trial court relied.” , ( , ).
  • Nordensson v. Nordensson 707 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • Nordensson v. Nordensson 707 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    For an example of a sufficiently definite trial court order in a domestic relations case, , , 427 (App. 1983), in which the trial record clearly stated that the motion for new trial was granted “in application of the test set forth in Simpson v. Superior Court, supra [ , ].” When the trial court does not specify with particularity, as here, the rule of Yoo