Cited by

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

328 citing documents.

Blair v. Burgener 245 P.3d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
It is the appellant’s burden to ensure that “the record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for us to consider the issues raised.” , see also Ariz. R. Civ.App.
Cardinal & Stachel, PC v. Curtiss 238 P.3d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Cardinal & Stachel, PC v. Curtiss 238 P.3d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
As the appellant, the law firm was obligated to ”mak[e] certain the record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for us to consider the issues raised.” , see also Ariz. R. Civ.App.
Kline v. Kline 212 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Kline v. Kline 212 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
13 “When no transcript is provided on appeal, the reviewing court assumes that the record supports the trial court’s decision.” ¶ 11 , ( , ).
Manu Dube v. Chandra S. Desai and Patricia Desai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Manu Dube v. Chandra S. Desai and Patricia Desai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
When the necessary items are omitted, “we assume they would support the court’s findings and conclusions.”
Adrian E. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 158 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Adrian E. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 158 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
LaWALL v. PIMA COUNTY MERIT COMMISSION And SCAMMON 134 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
LaWALL v. PIMA COUNTY MERIT COMMISSION And SCAMMON 134 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Romero v. Southwest Ambulance, rural/metro, City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Romero v. Southwest Ambulance, rural/metro, City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
See Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73, (“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.
Marriage of Kohler v. Kohler 118 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Marriage of Kohler v. Kohler 118 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Pence v. Glacy 87 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Pence v. Glacy 87 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Burton 66 P.3d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Burton 66 P.3d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Hamblen v. Hamblen 54 P.3d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Hilgeman v. American Mortgage Securities, Inc. 994 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Hilgeman v. American Mortgage Securities, Inc. 994 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Bolm v. Custodian of Records of Tucson Police Department 969 P.2d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Bolm v. Custodian of Records of Tucson Police Department 969 P.2d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Johnson v. Elson 967 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Johnson v. Elson 967 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
In Re the Marriage of Pearson v. Pearson 946 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re the Marriage of Pearson v. Pearson 946 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(father’s decision to retain profits and pay taxes inside the wholly-owned corporation “should not alter the amount of gross income charged to him for child support purposes”).