DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Marriage of Henderson v. Henderson, 390 P.3d 1226.

41 citing documents.

  • GARCIDUENAS v. MATRIX NEW WORLD Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    "A court abuses its discretion when its ruling is 'manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.'" ¶ 31 (App. 2017) (quoting Torres ex rel.
  • Barnum v. Barnum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Barnum v. Barnum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Malik v. Trinidade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Malik v. Trinidade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Mikalacki v. Rubezic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Mikalacki v. Rubezic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Declining to set a purge amount, the court ordered that in the event Husband “fail[ed] to pay the amounts ordered, [Wife] may offset the amounts owed” from Husband’s “share of the sale of the marital property and the refinancing of the [commercial] building.” ¶56 Although this court lacks jurisdiction over a civil contempt adjudication on direct review, ¶ 16 (App. 2017) (explaining contempt findings are reviewable only by special action), Husband does not challenge the superior court’s finding t
  • Gish v. Greyson 514 P.3d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Gish v. Greyson 514 P.3d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶23 One such exception is that the superior court retains jurisdiction pending an appeal to take such action as might be necessary to “enforce its previously entered judgment.” ¶ 27 (App. 2017).
  • Borges v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Borges v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    “A court abuses its discretion when its ruling is manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.” ¶ 31 (App. 2017) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
  • Nibley v. Hille Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Nibley v. Hille Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    NIBLEY v. HILLE Decision of the Court 585, ¶ 7 (App. 2017) (reviewing appeal as a special action because contempt findings are only reviewable by special action); ¶ 35 (App. 2001
  • Fuess v. Fuess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Fuess v. Fuess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Horst v. Horst Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Horst v. Horst Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶ 13 (App. 2017) (arguments raised for the first time on appeal usually are waived).
  • Green v. Rhoads Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Criticized Green v. Rhoads Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • state/michaelson v. Michaelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Shea G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Shea G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶ 13 (App. 2017) (an argument raised for the first time on appeal is waived).
  • state/michaelson v. Michaelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Aguilar v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Aguilar v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Williams v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Williams v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶ 29 (App. 2017) (finding no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial where appellant “has not explained how the outcomes of the proceedings would have been any different”).
  • Jaffe v. Legacy Partners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Jaffe v. Legacy Partners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Ashkenazi v. Baldino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Ashkenazi v. Baldino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Baldere v. Stark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Baldere v. Stark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 13 (App. 2017) (arguments raised for the first time on appeal are normally waived).
  • Adair v. Bajwa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Adair v. Bajwa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 31 (App. 2017) (quotation omitted).
  • Bangiyev v. Arzumanova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Bangiyev v. Arzumanova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    We treat the appeal as a special action regarding the contempt issue, ¶ 7 (App. 2017) (reviewing appeal as a special action because contempt findings are only reviewable by special action), and we remand for reconsideration and a ruling on the contempt petition.
  • Catrina K. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Catrina K. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Dellaripa v. Hon. holding/dellaripa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Dellaripa v. Hon. holding/dellaripa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    “We review a trial court’s contempt finding and imposition of sanctions for an abuse of discretion.” ____, ¶ 16 (App. 2017).