Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re the Marriage of Crawford, 884 P.2d 210.

36 citing documents.

HULL v. WILLIAMS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
HULL v. WILLIAMS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Potter v. Ehrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Potter v. Ehrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Johnson Utilities v. acc/swing First Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Johnson Utilities v. acc/swing First Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Special Health Care Dist., ¶ 5 (App. 2016)
Cerny v. Cerny Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Cerny v. Cerny Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶8 Because subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law to be decided by the superior court, we review the superior court’s determination de novo, Waldren, 217 Ariz. at 175, ¶ 6.
Bobrow v. Bobrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bobrow v. Bobrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 25-318(E); –28 (App. 1994).
Woodward v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Woodward v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Quam v. Grove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Quam v. Grove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Beatie v. Beatie 333 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Beatie v. Beatie 333 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Merrill v. Merrill 284 P.3d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Merrill v. Merrill 284 P.3d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
at 408, ¶¶ 23-24 , 36 P.3d at 756 ; ¶ 13 , (federal law did not bar former spouse from seeking reimbursement from military retiree who waived retirement benefits to receive disability pay); , (“An employee spouse cannot defeat the nonemployee spouse’s interest in retirement benefits by invoking a condition wholly within his or her control.”); , (former husband was not permitted “to transform retirement ben
State v. Maldonado 219 P.3d 1050 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Maldonado 219 P.3d 1050 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Thomas v. Thomas 205 P.3d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Thomas v. Thomas 205 P.3d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Flores 188 P.3d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Flores 188 P.3d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 5 , , (subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law and review is de novo).
Fry v. Garcia 138 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Fry v. Garcia 138 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
(“Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law; our review is therefore de novo.”); , (questions of statutory construction are issues of law for which our review is de novo).
Danielson v. Evans 36 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Danielson v. Evans 36 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
191 Ariz. at 469 , 957 P.2d at 1012 , , ("[A] community interest in military retirement benefits cannot be transformed into separate property by one spouse's electing to forego a portion of retirement pay in exchange for disability benefits."); , (rejecting
Samaritan Health System v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 11 P.3d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Samaritan Health System v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 11 P.3d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Fairway Constructors, Inc. v. Ahern 970 P.2d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Fairway Constructors, Inc. v. Ahern 970 P.2d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
In Re the Marriage of Gaddis 957 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
In Re the Marriage of Gaddis 957 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997