Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Dykeman v. Ashton, 446 P.2d 26.

66 citing documents.

Vasquez v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Vasquez v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
A. Motion to Continue ¶8 Wife argues her motion to continue the trial should have been granted because she showed good cause based on the “recent discovery of [her] medical condition requiring surgery.” We review the denial of a motion to continue for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the record is “devoid of competent evidence to support the decision,” or when the court commits “an error of 3 VASQUEZ v. RAMIREZ Decision of the Court law .
Harvey v. Borbon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Harvey v. Borbon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Huey v. Huey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Huey v. Huey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
We review the court’s 2 HUEY v. HUEY Decision of the Court denial of a motion to continue trial for an abuse of discretion, (citations omitted), but review de novo whether the court afforded Father due process, Jeff D. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 6 (App. 2016).
Trinity Financial v. Mercier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Trinity Financial v. Mercier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Priddy v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Priddy v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
“[I]t will not be presumed that an error is prejudicial so as to require reversal, [and] the prejudice must appear from the record.”
Williams v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Williams v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Fisher v. Rondo Pools Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Fisher v. Rondo Pools Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
("In order to justify the reversal of a case, there must not only be error, but it must be prejudicial to the substantial rights of the person assigning this error, and it will not be presumed that an error is prejudicial so as to require reversal, but the prejudice must appear from the record.").
Baseline Tree v. Sun Valley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Baseline Tree v. Sun Valley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“[I]t will not be presumed that an error is prejudicial so as to require reversal, but the prejudice must appear from the record.”).
McDonald v. McDonald Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
McDonald v. McDonald Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lopez v. Raygoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lopez v. Raygoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Felix v. Montes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Felix v. Montes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sarbu v. Carp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sarbu v. Carp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Runyard v. Runyard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Runyard v. Runyard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Mortensen v. Mortensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mortensen v. Mortensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
DISCUSSION I. Trial Continuance ¶6 Barbara argues the family court abused its discretion in denying her motion to continue because she did not have adequate time to cross-examine Jerry and to testify.1 (reviewing family court’s ruling on motion to continue for abuse of discretion).
Guislan v. Helmus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Guislan v. Helmus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
App. 2d 627, 635 (1963)), and that prejudice must “appear from the record.” -30, -29 (1968) (finding no prejudice where nothing in record indicated correction of error complained of would have affected defendant’s ability to prepare for trial).
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(finding waiver based on failure to comply with formal appellate rules).
Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Copper Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, (declining to address alleged errors when appellant failed to set forth challenged jury instructions in brief or appendix as required by appellate rules).
Picaso v. Tucson Unified School District 154 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Picaso v. Tucson Unified School District 154 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
STATE DES v. Valentine 945 P.2d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
STATE DES v. Valentine 945 P.2d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Ring v. Taylor 685 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Ring v. Taylor 685 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
James v. Cox 634 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
James v. Cox 634 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Yates v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR CTY. OF PIMA 586 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Yates v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR CTY. OF PIMA 586 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Hemet Dodge v. Gryder 534 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hemet Dodge v. Gryder 534 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Gutierrez v. Gutierrez 513 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Gutierrez v. Gutierrez 513 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973