DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re the Marriage of Dorman, 9 P.3d 329.

124 citing documents.

  • Paul E. v. Courtney F. 418 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Paul E. v. Courtney F. 418 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    In re Marriage of Dorman , , 301, ¶ 7, , 332 (App. 2000).
  • Matthews v. Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Matthews v. Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 3 (App. 2000).1 DISCUSSION I. Petition to Enforce Parenting Time ¶6 Father argues the family court (1) “revoked” his constitutional right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of the child without due process and (2) “violated” his right un
  • Sundstrom v. Flatt 418 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Sundstrom v. Flatt 418 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    In re Marriage of Dorman , , 303, ¶ 12, , 334 (App. 2000).
  • Vincent v. Shanovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Vincent v. Shanovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    § 12-2101(A)(2), the order “must raise different issues than those that would be raised by appealing the underlying judgment.” ¶ 3 (App. 2000) (–27 (App. 1995)) (emphasis added).
  • Jones v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Jones v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Alvarado v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Alvarado v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    § 12- 2101(A)(2); -67, ¶¶ 19-29 (App. 2011) (order appealed from must resolve all issues in subject petition even though total finality in post-decree context is not required); -01, ¶ 4 (App. 2000) (order resolving petition to modify dissolution decree was appealable as a special order after final judgment).
  • Downum v. Downum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Downum v. Downum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    § 25– 411 are procedural rather than jurisdictional and are intended to “prevent repeated or insubstantial motions for modification.” ¶ 11 (App. 2000) (internal quotation omitted).
  • Cioppa v. Pataky Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Cioppa v. Pataky Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    § 12- 2101(A)(2); ¶ 4, (concluding an order resolving a petition to modify a decree of dissolution was appealable as a special order after final judgment); -67, ¶¶ 19-29, -77 (App. 2011) (ruling that an order appealed from must resolve all issues
  • ades/butkivich v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • ades/butkivich v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 11 (App. 2011) (); ¶ 3 (App. 2000).
  • McClure v. McClure Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • McClure v. McClure Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 3 (App. 2000) (noting order relating to enforcement of judgment may be appealable as special order after judgment).
  • Schott v. Schott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Schott v. Schott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶¶ 3-4 (App. 2000) (holding an order modifying custody from that specified in the dissolution decree is appealable as a special order after a final judgment).
  • Jeff D. v. Department of Child Safety 367 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Jeff D. v. Department of Child Safety 367 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Walker v. Sinikova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Walker v. Sinikova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    -01, ¶¶ 3-4 (App. 2000) (“To be appealable, a special order after judgment must raise different issues than those that would be raised by appealing the underlying judgment; it must affect the underlying judgment, relate to its enforcement, or stay its execution; and it must not be merely preparatory to a later pro
  • Flynn v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Flynn v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    § 25-411(L); ¶ 10 (App. 2000).
  • Nicholas v. Nicholas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Nicholas v. Nicholas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Johnson v. Swing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Johnson v. Swing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    5 JOHNSON v. SWING Decision of the Court ¶12 “Subject matter jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the particular proceedings belong,” ¶ 7, ( ) (internal quotation marks omitted), and is conferred by our constitution or statutes, ¶ 14
  • Mayol v. Rowlls Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Mayol v. Rowlls Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    § 25-411 are procedural rather than jurisdictional, and are intended to “prevent repeated or insubstantial motions for modification.” ¶ 11 (App. 2000) (internal quotation omitted).
  • Fowler v. Fowler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Fowler v. Fowler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Krieger v. Duick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Explained Krieger v. Duick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Medley v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Medley v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Olade v. Olade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Olade v. Olade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Sahlin v. Hon fridlund-horne/hartfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Sahlin v. Hon fridlund-horne/hartfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶ 11, see Richards v. Superior Court, 22 Ariz.App.
  • Natale v. Natale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Natale v. Natale 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 Kassa 299 P.3d 1290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • In Re the Marriage of Kassa 299 P.3d 1290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    See Rule 78(B); ¶¶ 10-13, -64 (App. 2012) (judgment not final and appealable in the absence of Rule 54(b) certification); ¶¶ 3-4, -32 (App. 2000) (special order appealable when it resolves “all the issues raised in the petition”).