DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite McGovern v. McGovern, 33 P.3d 506.

68 citing documents.

  • Lattimore v. Boyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Beatie v. Beatie 333 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Beatie v. Beatie 333 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Lambertus v. Hon. porter/day-strange 332 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • MARIO W. v. Kaipio 265 P.3d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • MARIO W. v. Kaipio 265 P.3d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    When doubts exist as to a statute’s viability, we attempt to construe the statute with “a reasonable and constitutional meaning.” ¶ 21 , ( ¶ 20 , ).
  • Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    See, ¶ 39 , ¶ 22 , -82, 1125 , -05 (App.2007); Bed Mart, 1124 , ¶ 28 , Country Mut.
  • Holland v. Hurley 212 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • Holland v. Hurley 212 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    See Cohen, ¶¶ 23-24 , 13 P.3d at 762-63 (trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs belated request for discovery on personal jurisdiction issue); , (we review for abuse of discretion trial court’s ruling on motion for reconsideration); cf. Phil W. Morris Co., 138 Ariz. at 94 , 673 P.2d at 32 (after granting summary judgment, trial court acts within its discretion in rejecting new evidence presented in motion for reconsideration
  • Egan v. Fridlund-Horne 211 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Egan v. Fridlund-Horne 211 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    A year later, ¶ 23 , the court again considered the rights of grandparents to seek visitation and determined that the language used in Jackson was dictum because the issue in that case involved a parent’s decision to terminate visitation, not merely limit it.
  • Tilley v. Delci 204 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Tilley v. Delci 204 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Downs v. Scheffler 80 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Downs v. Scheffler 80 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    ¶ 15 , (when determining child’s best interests under grandparent visitation statute, court is obliged to consider “all relevant factors,” not merely those enumerated in the statute); ¶ 11 , (same).
  • LaFaro v. Cahill 56 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • LaFaro v. Cahill 56 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    ¶ 20 , (citing Hansson v. Ariz. Bd.