Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re the Marriage of Yuro, 968 P.2d 1053.
- Ekberg v. M-14p Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Ekberg v. M-14p
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
n.1 (App. 1998), and view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the court’s rulings, ¶ 3 (App. 1998).
- Milham v. Milham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Milham v. Milham
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
and the obligor was prejudiced by this delay.” ¶ 13 (App. 1998).
- Obiekea v. Obiekea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Obiekea v. Obiekea
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(noting, on appeal, the evidence is viewed “in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s findings”).
- Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- De Leon v. Pizarro, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
De Leon v. Pizarro, Sr.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
n.1 (App. 1998), and view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the court’s rulings, ¶ 3 (App. 1998).
- Eans-Snoderly v. Snoderly 473 P.3d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- Eans-Snoderly v. Snoderly 473 P.3d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- Coburn v. Rhodig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Coburn v. Rhodig
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 17 (App. 1998) (holding prejudice not shown by the increased financial burden resulting from compound interest on arrearages and because obligor did not change his financial position in reliance on the agreement).
- Strobel v. Rosier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
Strobel v. Rosier
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
§ 1738B governs and “preempts all similar state laws pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.” ¶ 7 (App. 1998).
- Tiffany Taylor v. Thomas Pandola Ariz. 2018
-
Tiffany Taylor v. Thomas Pandola
Ariz. 2018
§ 25-503(I) (stating that monthly support payments vest as enforceable arrears judgments); ¶ 7 (App. 1998) (stating 28 U.S.C.
- Porter v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Porter v. Smith
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the [family] court’s findings and will uphold them unless they are clearly erroneous or unsupported by the evidence.” ¶ 3 (App. 1998) (citation omitted).
- Razdan v. Razdan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Razdan v. Razdan
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 52(a), and ¶ 3 (App. 1998)).
- Heroyan-Hamayak v. Hamayak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Heroyan-Hamayak v. Hamayak
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 52(a), and ¶ 3 (App. 1998)), and we will affirm the custody order if there is any reasonable evidence to support it, ().
- Lambesis v. Lambesis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Lambesis v. Lambesis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Delancy v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Delancy v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Ghosoph v. Kottmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Ghosoph v. Kottmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- McCammon v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- McCammon v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Van Leeuwen v. Van Leeuwen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
Van Leeuwen v. Van Leeuwen
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s findings and will uphold them unless they are clearly erroneous or unsupported by the evidence.” ¶ 3
- Sprague v. Shipley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Sprague v. Shipley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- In Re Marriage of Dougall 316 P.3d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
- In Re Marriage of Dougall 316 P.3d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
- In Re the Marriage of Priessman 266 P.3d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
-
In Re the Marriage of Priessman
266 P.3d 362
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Factual Background and Procedural History ¶2 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s findings and will uphold them unless they are clearly erroneous or unsupported by the evidence.”
- 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