DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Badertscher v. Badertscher, 460 P.2d 37.

28 citing documents.

  • Lehn v. Al-Thanayyan 438 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Lehn v. Al-Thanayyan 438 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Without referring to this statute, this Court upheld the imposition of a bond to assure that a father returned his children and complied with a n.4 (App. 1982).
  • Shacknai v. Shacknai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Shacknai v. Shacknai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    (citation omitted), n.4, n.4 (App. 1982), disapproved by Finck v. O’Toole, -07, -27 (1994).
  • Baker v. Baker 900 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • Baker v. Baker 900 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • Bryan v. Bryan 645 P.2d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • Bryan v. Bryan 645 P.2d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    91 et seq., , holding that a parent could be denied visitation rights if the best interest of the child would be served.
  • Lamb v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 621 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1980
  • Lamb v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 621 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1980
  • Marriage of Andrews v. Andrews 612 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • Marriage of Andrews v. Andrews 612 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    (in both cases the respective fathers had successfully petitioned the court for a change of custody and were allowed credit for expenditures made while child was in father’s custody and where the payments were in substantial compliance with the spirit and intent of the decree).
  • Lopez v. Lopez 609 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • Lopez v. Lopez 609 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • Ibach v. Ibach 600 P.2d 1370 Ariz. 1979
  • Ibach v. Ibach 600 P.2d 1370 Ariz. 1979
  • Jarvis v. Jarvis 553 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Jarvis v. Jarvis 553 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Stanley v. Stanley 535 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Stanley v. Stanley 535 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Spector v. Spector 496 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • Spector v. Spector 496 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
    It further ordered: “[T]he Defendant shall continue to pay child support as ordered by this Judgment even during periods of visitation by the children with the Defendant.” Defendant asserts the above order is an abuse of the trial court’s , where the court stated: “The appellant actually supported the children during this period and to require that he also furnish the full support payments to appellee is unwarranted.” Defendant, however, fails to distinguish between periods of custody ordered by
  • Randolph v. Howard 491 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • Randolph v. Howard 491 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
    Brandel v. Brandel, 69 Ill.App.2d 264 , 216 N.E.2d 21 (1966).
  • Baures v. Baures 478 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Baures v. Baures 478 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
    Annot, 10 A.L.R.3d 280 , 299 (1966).