Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Marriage of Gibbs, 258 P.3d 221.

68 citing documents.

Kaestle v. Kaestle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Kaestle v. Kaestle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Johnson v. Malone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Johnson v. Malone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 20 (App. 2011) (quotation omitted).
Lawrence T. v. Dcs, M.T. 438 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Lawrence T. v. Dcs, M.T. 438 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 8 (App. 2011); see also Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Birnstihl v. Birnstihl 416 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Birnstihl v. Birnstihl 416 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In re Marriage of Gibbs , , 408, ¶ 12, , 226 (App. 2011) (although the doctrine of claim preclusion "enforces important principles of judicial economy and finality, its application, under the specific circumstances here, would undermine the public policy expressed in our applicable child support modification statutes by preventing
Stringer v. Stringer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Stringer v. Stringer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Larmer v. Larmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Larmer v. Larmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Reviewing the superior court’s findings for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 6, (appellate court reviews findings of fact for an abuse of discretion) (citation omitted), we disagree.
Manola v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Manola v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
at 52 ¶ 16, and this court accepts the superior court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, ¶ 16 (App. 2011).
Baker v. Meyer 346 P.3d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Baker v. Meyer 346 P.3d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
In Re the Marriage of Thorn 330 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
In Re the Marriage of Thorn 330 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
“We review a trial court’s findings of fact for abuse of discretion and reverse only when clearly erroneous.” see also Engel, 212 P.3d at 848.