DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re the Marriage of Williams, 200 P.3d 1043.

143 citing documents.

  • Bentley v. Bentley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    –49 ¶ 10, –46 (App. 2008).
  • Flynn v. Campbell 378 P.3d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Flynn v. Campbell 378 P.3d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Although we hold self- represented parties to the same standards as attorneys with respect to familiarity with required procedures and rules, ¶ 13, a plaintiff’s pro se 7 FLYNN v. CAMPBELL Opinion of the Court status is relevant in assessing what the plaintiff knew or thought she knew at the time of the original pleading.
  • Sharkey v. Sharkey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Sharkey v. Sharkey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Clark v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Clark v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Burns v. Burns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Burns v. Burns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 13, (stating that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys regarding required procedures).
  • Jeff D. v. Department of Child Safety 367 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Jeff D. v. Department of Child Safety 367 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 10 (App. 2008) ( ¶ 11 (2002)).
  • Bobrow v. Herrod Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 367 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Bobrow v. Herrod Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 367 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    First, the legislature clearly intended for A.R.S § 12-2108.A.1 to apply to divorce cases, and we “give effect to the legislature’s intent.” ¶ 10 (App. 2008).
  • Walker v. Sinikova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Walker v. Sinikova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 10 (App. 2009) (stating standard and reviewing for abuse of discretion); ¶ 8 (App. 2008) (“An abuse of discretion occurs when a court commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion.”).
  • Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    in briefs on appeal constitutes a waiver of the issue.”); ¶ 13, (stating that an appellant representing himself is held to the same level of knowledge regarding the required procedures and applicable laws as attorneys).
  • Tupper v. Tupper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Tupper v. Tupper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    A court abuses its discretion when it “commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion.” ¶ 8 (App. 2008) (citation omitted).
  • Backus v. Ellison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Backus v. Ellison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Kohner v. Pyper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Kohner v. Pyper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Swett v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Swett v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Mothersed v. Greenen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Mothersed v. Greenen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    –49 ¶ 10, –46 (App. 2008).
  • Vogue v. Maleknia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Vogue v. Maleknia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    -49, ¶¶ 10-12, -46 (App. 2008).
  • Smith v. Frederick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Smith v. Frederick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Father’s P.3d 164 (App. 2011), and P.3d 1043 (App. 2008), is misplaced.
  • Jacobson v. Jacobson-Boettcher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Jacobson v. Jacobson-Boettcher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶ 12, (concluding that the “legislature intended courts to assess the reasonableness of a litigant’s position pursuant to § 25-324(A) by an objective standard”).
  • Miller v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Miller v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    notice of statutes and local rules.’” ¶ 13, (citation omitted).
  • Teamer v. Daniells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Teamer v. Daniells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Boyle v. Boyle 290 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Boyle v. Boyle 290 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    A family court abuses its discretion by making an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion, ¶ 8 , or making a discretionary ruling that the record does not support, ¶ 19
  • In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    Relying on , Hyatt contends the court abused its discretion by failing “to consider the financial resources of both parties.” He maintains the court erred in awarding attorney fees to Lethia “based solely on the parties’ disparity in incomes.” ¶21 The trial court received evidence regarding “financial r
  • Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    Relying on P.3d 1043 (App. 2008), Hyatt contends the court abused its discretion by failing “to consider the financial resources of both parties.” He maintains the court erred in awarding attorney fees to Lethia “based solely on the parties‟ disparity in incomes.” ¶21 The trial court received evidence r