Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Willie G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 119 P.3d 1034.

149 citing documents.

Tomeka C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., –35 ¶¶ 13, 21 (App. 2005).
Eugene W. v. Dcs, P.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Eugene W. v. Dcs, P.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Melissa W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Melissa W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶ 21 (App. 2005) (citing Maricopa Cnty.
Shella H. v. Department of Child Safety 366 P.3d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shella H. v. Department of Child Safety 366 P.3d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Penny R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Penny R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ashley H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ashley H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sec., ¶ 21 (App. 2005); see also In re Maricopa Cty.
Frank G., Annette G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Frank G., Annette G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lynandra W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lynandra W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jessyca P., Bradon P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jessyca P., Bradon P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sec., ¶ 13, 235, ¶ 21 (App. 2005).
Louis C. v. Department of Child Safety 353 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Louis C. v. Department of Child Safety 353 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Mark S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Mark S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Maria J. v. Dcs, R.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Maria J. v. Dcs, R.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Oscar F. v. Dcs, E.F., M.f, C. F. G.F. and L.F. 330 P.3d 1023 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Oscar F. v. Dcs, E.F., M.f, C. F. G.F. and L.F. 330 P.3d 1023 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Sec., (internal citation omitted).
David F., Michelle F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
David F., Michelle F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Grant 307 P.3d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Grant 307 P.3d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
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
Sec., ¶ 21 , (citing Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Mangan v. Mangan 258 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Mangan v. Mangan 258 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Sec., ¶ 8 , (stating that this court reviews de novo matters of statutory interpretation and mixed questions of fact and law).
3502 Lending, LLC v. CTC Real Estate Service 229 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
3502 Lending, LLC v. CTC Real Estate Service 229 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Beck v. Deem 224 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Estate of Olson 224 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Estate of Olson 224 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Beck v. Deem 224 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Antonio P. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 187 P.3d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Antonio P. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 187 P.3d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Sec., ¶ 21 , (the juvenile court has “a great deal of discretion” because the child’s best interests is always the primary concern in dependency cases).
In Re Estate of Parker 177 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Dometri Investments, LLC v. Lind 177 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Dometri Investments, LLC v. Lind 177 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Sec., ¶ 8 , (“Matters of statutory interpretation are questions of law, which we review de novo.”).
In Re Estate of Parker 177 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Sec., ¶ 8 , ("Matters of statutory interpretation are questions of law, which we review de novo.").
Hounshell v. White 202 P.3d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Hounshell v. White 202 P.3d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Sec., ¶ 8 , (“Matters of statutory interpretation are questions of law, which we review de novo.”).
Melgar v. Campo 161 P.3d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Melgar v. Campo 161 P.3d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007