Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Marriage of Dougall, 316 P.3d 591.
- Morgan v. Morgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Morgan v. Morgan
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
If a judgment is void, the superior court “has no discretion but to vacate it.” ¶ 12 (App. 2013) (citation omitted).
- Mikalacki v. Rubezic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Mikalacki v. Rubezic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Potter v. Potter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Potter v. Potter
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶11 “A judgment or order is ‘void’ if the court entering it lacked jurisdiction: (1) over the subject matter, (2) over the person involved, or (3) to render the particular judgment or order entered.” ¶ 12 (App. 2013) ().
- Brevetti v. Brevetti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Brevetti v. Brevetti
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 12 (App. 2013) (explaining judgments and orders are void if the court entering them lacks jurisdiction) (citation omitted).
- Cota v. Keene Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Cota v. Keene Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Yee v. Yee 484 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Yee v. Yee
484 P.3d 650
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 9 (App. 2013); accord M & M Auto Storage Pool, Inc. v. Chem.
- State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
State v. Miller
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
§§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(2) (2020).1 ¶ 9 (App. 2013) (noting denial of Rule 85 motion for relief from judgment “is appealable as a ‘special order made after final judgment’”) (quoting A.R.S.
- State v. McEvoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
State v. McEvoy
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“[A] notice of appeal must be filed no later than thirty days after entry of the judgment or order from which the appeal is taken.” ¶ 7 (App. 2013); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
- Greenham v. Hope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
Greenham v. Hope
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-6, ¶ 9 (App. 2013) (denial of a motion made pursuant to Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 85(C) is appealable under § 12-2101(A)(2)).
- Kostadinova v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
Kostadinova v. Stephens
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 9, n.5 (App. 2013) (“Wherever the language in [the Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure] is substantially the same as the language in other statewide rules, the case law interpreting that language will apply to these rules.”) (alteration in original) (quoting Ariz. R. Fam.
- Razdan v. Razdan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Razdan v. Razdan
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 9 (App. 2013) (holding an order denying a motion for relief is appealable as a special order after final judgment) (citations omitted); -72, ¶¶ 5- 6 (App. 2012) (considering an appeal from a ruling on a petition to enforce 2 Absent material changes from the relevant dat
- Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Smith v. Smith
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
App. P. 9(a); ¶ 7, (providing that Rule 9(e) extends time to file a notice of appeal until after court rules on certain timely filed motions, including a motion pursuant to Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 83(A)).
- Sandra Howell v. John Howell 361 P.3d 936 Ariz. 2015
-
Sandra Howell v. John Howell
361 P.3d 936
Ariz. 2015
¶ 19, 6 HOWELL V. HOWELL Opinion of the Court (deciding that nothing in § 25-530 prevented the court from considering VA disability benefits in determining the payment of arrearages stemming