DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Myrick v. Maloney, 333 P.3d 818.

267 citing documents.

  • Deutsche Bank v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Kotara v. Franco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Kotara v. Franco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Chandler v. Ellington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Chandler v. Ellington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    (recognizing the family court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses, and the appellate court gives deference to its determination), ¶ 8, Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12, (stating that the superior court is not bound to accept even the uncontradicted evidence of an interested party).
  • Shacknai v. Shacknai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Shacknai v. Shacknai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Ledo v. Ledo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Ledo v. Ledo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Although we agree with Mother that “[t]he Guidelines do not declare that every capital gain is gross income for child support purposes,” ¶ 8, it is within the 7 LYNCH v. BRAKEBILL Decision of the Court discretion of the trial court to make the determination on a case-by-case basis.
  • Jacobson v. Jacobson-Boettcher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Jacobson v. Jacobson-Boettcher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶ 9, (“[A] disparity alone does not mandate an award of fees.
  • Shurts v. Shurts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Shurts v. Shurts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶ 9, see also Magee, 206 Ariz. at 593, ¶ 18, 81 P.3d at 1052.
  • Robinson v. Hutchins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Robinson v. Hutchins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    - 92, -87 (App. 1995), superseded in part by statute on other grounds as recognized in Myrick v. Maloney, ___ Ariz. ___