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.

  • Flores v. Martinez 289 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • Flores v. Martinez 289 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    Law P. 78 and 81 (specifying requirements for entry of judgment or appealable order); (setting forth criteria for appealable special orders under § 12-2101); see also Haroutunian v. Valueoptions, Inc., ¶¶ 7, 10, -18, 3 Martinez initially filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction on res judicata g
  • Glover v. Glover 289 P.3d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Glover v. Glover 289 P.3d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    B. ¶ 18 “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 stat *6 utes.
  • Joshua J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 286 P.3d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Joshua J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 286 P.3d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Lally v. Lally 265 P.3d 1068 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Lally v. Lally 265 P.3d 1068 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    ¶ 5 “To be appealable, a special order after judgment must raise different issues than those that would be raised by appealing the underlying judgment.” ¶ 3 , (citing Arvizu, 183 Ariz. at 226-27 , 902 P.2d at 832-33 ).
  • Williams v. Williams 264 P.3d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Williams v. Williams 264 P.3d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    ¶ 18 Father contends that , supports a determination that the January 2009 order was appealable.
  • State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • Sheehan v. Flower 170 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Sheehan v. Flower 170 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    (order modifying custody, visitation, and support was appealable as a "special order” made after final judgment); -01, ¶¶ 3-4 , -32 (App.2000) (order changing custody of minor child and establishing visitation rights was an appeal-able special order when it was not "merely preparatory” and "resolve[d] all the issues raised in the petition”).
  • Marriage of Boncoskey v. Boncoskey 167 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Marriage of Boncoskey v. Boncoskey 167 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    § 12-2101(0; -01 , -32 (App.2000) (holding order modifying portion of decree was special order after judgment because it raised issues different than those that would be raised in appeal from decree and affected decree and its enforcement).
  • Burkhamer v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • Burkhamer v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    § 12-2101; Dollar A Day Rent A Car Sys., (“Denial of a motion to amend complaint is not an appealable order.”); (“To be appealable, a special order after judgment must raise different issues than those that would be raised by appealing the underlying judgment.”).
  • Burk v. State 156 P.3d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Burk v. State 156 P.3d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    (“A.R.S.”) §§ 25-1031, -1032 (Supp.2006); ¶ 7
  • 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