Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Duwyenie v. Moran, 207 P.3d 754.

34 citing documents.

King v. Bertram Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
King v. Bertram Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶¶ 16–17 (App. 2009) (the party stipulating to an order cannot object to the terms in that order on appeal).
In Re Guardianship of A.K. 557 P.3d 770 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In Re Guardianship of A.K. 557 P.3d 770 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Holly C. v. Tohono O’odham Nation, ¶ 26 (App. 2019); ¶ 7 (App. 2009).
Nickel v. Potter 537 P.3d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Nickel v. Potter 537 P.3d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Sykes v. Siekerman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Sykes v. Siekerman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Antonetti v. Hon. Westerhausen Klinger 523 P.3d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Antonetti v. Hon. Westerhausen Klinger 523 P.3d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
sing whether an absence qualifies as temporary for determining a child’s “home state.” ¶¶ 36– 38 (App. 2016) (rejecting a parent’s contention that a child’s 10-month absence from a state was temporary, noting the period in that case was “much longer” than the absences at issue in cases cited to the court); ¶ 9 (App. 2009) (concluding that Arizona was the child’s home state notwithstanding that the child “had not lived in Arizona for six months prior to [the commencement of the custody] 4 Althoug
Milham v. Milham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Milham v. Milham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See 4 ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (a party generally cannot appeal from an order the party consented to).
Hanger v. Hanger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Hanger v. Hanger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Anthony v. Anthony Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Anthony v. Anthony Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Krenz v. Neuman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Krenz v. Neuman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 35 (App. 2014) ("Having successfully persuaded the court to follow this approach, [the party] cannot now argue it was erroneous."); ¶ 16 (App. 2009).
Cleary v. Cordero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Cleary v. Cordero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 16 (App. 2009); ¶ 35 (App. 2014) (“Having successfully persuaded the court to follow this approach, [the party] cannot now argue it was erroneous.”).
Lee v. ING Investment Management, LLC 377 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lee v. ING Investment Management, LLC 377 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 16 (2009) (explaining that a party cannot challenge a judgment to which it consented).
Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
In Re the Marriage of Margain and Ruiz-Bours 372 P.3d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
In Re the Marriage of Margain and Ruiz-Bours 372 P.3d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Factual and Procedural Background ¶2 “We view the record in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision.”
Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions 367 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions 367 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Hope v. Hope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Hope v. Hope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 7, (UCCJEA); ¶ 7, (UIFSA).
Mangan v. Mangan 258 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Mangan v. Mangan 258 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
12 -04, ¶ 9 , -57 (App.2009).
Douglas v. Governing Board of Window Rock Consolidated School District No. 8 210 P.3d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Douglas v. Governing Board of Window Rock Consolidated School District No. 8 210 P.3d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
240, 242 , (“It is well settled that ordinarily a consent judgment is not subject to appellate review.”); , (“A party cannot generally appeal from an order that it consented to have entered against it.”); Guard v. County of Maricopa, 14 Ariz.App.