DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Baker v. Baker, 900 P.2d 764.

328 citing documents.

  • state/carlos v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    “[T]he appellant [has the] burden to ensure that ‘the record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for us to consider the issues raised.’” ¶ 9 (App. 2010) ().
  • Beck v. Pino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Beck v. Pino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    If an appellant fails to do so, “we assume [any missing transcript or record item] would support the court’s findings and conclusions.”
  • Wright v. Mailatyar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Wright v. Mailatyar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    (“When a party fails to include necessary items, we assume they would support the court’s findings and conclusions.”).
  • Garza v. Collinsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Garza v. Collinsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    (“A party is responsible for making certain the record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for us to consider the issues raised on appeal,” and “[w]hen a party fails to include necessary items, we assume they would support the court’s findings and conclusions.”).
  • Collier v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Nextgear v. Owens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Collier v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Nextgear v. Owens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    1 The Owens did not provide hearing transcripts, and “we assume [the missing transcripts] would support the court’s findings and conclusions.” ARCAP 11.
  • Nickel v. Potter 537 P.3d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Motley v. Simmons 537 P.3d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Nickel v. Potter 537 P.3d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    (“A party is responsible for making certain the record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for us to consider the issues raised on appeal.”).
  • Motley v. Simmons 537 P.3d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    see also ARCAP 11(c) (noting appellant has a duty to order relevant transcripts).
  • Arizona Republican Party v. Richer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Arizona Republican Party v. Richer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    (“A party is responsible for making certain the record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for us to consider the issues raised on appeal.”); see also ARCAP 11(c) (explaining the appellant’s duty to order transcripts).
  • Andrich v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Li v. Zhao Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Li v. Zhao Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    v. Burton, ¶ 16 (App. 2003); (“A party is responsible for making certain the record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for us to consider the issues raised on appeal.”).
  • Andrich v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    ("A party is responsible for making certain the record on appeal contains all transcripts" and "we assume [missing transcripts] would support the court's findings and conclusions.").
  • Staker v. Staker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Staker v. Staker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Schultz v. Schultz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Schultz v. Schultz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    ARCAP 11(c)(1); (“A party is responsible for making certain the record on appeal contains all transcripts,” and “we assume [missing transcripts] would support the court’s findings and conclusions.”).
  • Schumacher v. Hargrave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Schumacher v. Hargrave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    We therefore assume the transcript “would support the court’s findings and conclusions.”
  • Mays v. Mwm Vicsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Mays v. Mwm Vicsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    “When a party fails to include necessary items, we assume they would support the court’s findings and conclusions.”
  • Watkins v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Engram v. Uaic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Engram v. Uaic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    ¶ 9 (App. 2010) (); see also ARCAP 11(b)(1).
  • Watkins v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Lanier v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Lanier v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    See id.; see also ARCAP 11(a) (outlining the composition of the “record on appeal”); (“When a party fails to include necessary items, we assume they would support the court’s findings and conclusion.”).
  • Carrion v. Carrion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Carrion v. Carrion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Koizumi v. Morogiello Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Koizumi v. Morogiello Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Peralta v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Peralta v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Palestina v. McMillin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Palestina v. McMillin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    As such, we “presume the items not included in the appellate record support [the] trial court’s ruling.” Id.; ARCAP 11(c)(1)(B).
  • Petramala v. Des Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Criticized Petramala v. Des Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    has an obligation to provide transcripts and other documents necessary to consider the issues raised on appeal.”); ARCAP 11(c)(1)(B).
  • Perez v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Perez v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Luvisi v. Ellison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Luvisi v. Ellison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    see also ARCAP 11(c); ¶ 13 (App. 2001) (“When there is no request for findings and the trial court does not make specific findings of fact, we must assume that the trial court found every fact necessary to support its [ruling] and must affirm if any reasonable c
  • Brandon J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021