DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Porreca v. Porreca, 446 P.2d 500.

30 citing documents.

  • 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
    Lindsay v. Lindsay, supra
  • Mori v. Mori 603 P.2d 85 Ariz. 1979
  • Mori v. Mori 603 P.2d 85 Ariz. 1979
    -29 , -06 (App.1977) [ , ]: Porreca, supra, recognized the sound public policy involved in fixed-term rehabilitative spousal maintenance awards which, under appropriate circumstances, may provide an incentive for one receiving spousal maintenance payments to use diligence in procuring the requisite training and skills so
  • Raley v. Wilber 594 P.2d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Raley v. Wilber 594 P.2d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    99 , (not lump sum payment when award conditioned on changed economic circumstances or remarriage); , (not lump sum payment when award conditioned on remarriage).
  • In Re Marriage of Fong 589 P.2d 1330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • In Re Marriage of Fong 589 P.2d 1330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    While it is true, in the normal marriage situation, that the trial court may properly consider standards of living that the marriage provided in awarding alimony, , this is not the normal marriage situation.
  • 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
    relied on by the court in O’ Connor, supra, presented a situation similar in some respects to that in the case at hand.
  • 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
  • Pyeatte v. Pyeatte 520 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • Pyeatte v. Pyeatte 520 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • Williams v. Williams 509 P.2d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Williams v. Williams 509 P.2d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    In reviewing an alimony award, , : “.
  • 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
    The recent case, , has concisely stated this court’s position concerning alimony: “In determining what amount should be awarded as alimony the trial court has broad discretion, , and where there is any reasonable evidence to support the judgment of the trial co
  • Davis v. Davis 499 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • Davis v. Davis 499 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • O'Connor v. O'Connor 494 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • O'Connor v. O'Connor 494 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Huerta v. Huerta 487 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • Followed Huerta v. Huerta 487 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
    where Division Two of this Court reversed the judgment of the trial court holding that the trial judge had abused his discretion in setting alimony in a case where the parties were married for approximately 18 years and the wife had contributed substantially to the material betterment of the com
  • Porreca v. Porreca 476 P.2d 684 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • Porreca v. Porreca 476 P.2d 684 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • Johnson v. Johnson 469 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Johnson v. Johnson 469 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    We note but a few of the salient facts
  • 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