DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Louis C. v. Department of Child Safety, 353 P.3d 364.

104 citing documents.

  • Kurwin M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Kurwin M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Michelle D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Michelle D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Mark O. v. Dcs, A.O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Justin A. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Mark O. v. Dcs, A.O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    v. Oscar O., ¶ 4 (App. 2004), we review an order adjudicating a child dependent for an abuse of discretion, Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2015).
  • Justin A. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    1 “On review of an adjudication of dependency, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the juvenile court’s findings.” Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) (citation omitted).
  • Jayson v. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Jayson v. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    DISCUSSION ¶4 We review a finding of dependency for an abuse of discretion, Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2015), “view[ing] the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the 1 Chief Judge Peter B. Swann replaces the Honorable Kenton D. Jones, who was originally assigned to this panel.
  • Maria v. v. Dcs, Z.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Maria v. v. Dcs, Z.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2015).
  • Satava O. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Satava O. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2015).
  • Yvonne W. v. Dcs, L.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Yvonne W. v. Dcs, L.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶ 12 (App. 2015); Bob H. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ.
  • Keith R. v. Dcs, A.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Keith R. v. Dcs, A.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 23 (App. 2015).
  • Erica H. v. Dcs, I.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Erica H. v. Dcs, I.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Jared D. v. Dcs, G.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Jared D. v. Dcs, G.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 23 (App. 2015).
  • Jeffrey T. v. Dcs, A.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Jeffrey T. v. Dcs, A.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    See Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 20 (App. 2015) (recognizing that this court generally does not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal (citation omitted)).
  • K.C. v. Dcs, Deandra G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • K.C. v. Dcs, Deandra G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶ 20 (App. 2015) (assuming without deciding that fundamental error review is available to a parent challenging a dependency adjudication).
  • Susan Ryan v. napier/klein 425 P.3d 230 Ariz. 2018
  • Susan Ryan v. napier/klein 425 P.3d 230 Ariz. 2018
    Cf. Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 22 (App. 2015) (“The legislature’s specification, in § 13-205, of what ‘the state’ must prove, and the location of the statute in chapter 2 of the criminal code, titled ‘General Principles of Criminal Liability,’ belie any suggestion that the legislature intended to shift or alter the burden of proof when a par
  • Shyann P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Shyann P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 8-235(A) (2018), 12-120.21(A)(1) (2018) and -2101(A)(1) (2018).1 DISCUSSION ¶13 "We review a dependency order for a 'clear abuse of discretion.'" ¶ 12 (App. 2015).
  • Kristina T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Kristina T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • D'Andre H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • D'Andre H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    4 D’ANDRE H. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court ¶9 We review a dependency adjudication for abuse of discretion and accept the juvenile court’s determination “unless no reasonable evidence supports it.” Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2015) (quoting Willie G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
  • Jack S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Jack S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2015).
  • Carragane C. v. Dcs, A.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Carragane C. v. Dcs, A.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 20 (App. 2015) (“[This court] generally [does] not consider issues, even constitutional issues, raised for the first time on appeal.”) (citations omitted).
  • Roger W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Roger W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12, (appellate court reviews de novo legal issues requiring juvenile court to interpret or apply a statute).
  • Melissa D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Melissa D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶¶ 11–12 (App. 2015).
  • Tyren T., Brittany H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Tyren T., Brittany H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2015) (citations omitted).
  • Hunt v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Hunt v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 20, (appellate court generally does not consider issues “raised for the first time on appeal”) (quotations and citation omitted); ¶ 25, (“[A]rguments not raised in the trial court are waived on appeal.”) (citati
  • Lenore S. v. Dcs, S.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Lenore S. v. Dcs, S.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    § 8–844(C)(1); Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, J.C., ¶ 13
  • Melissa W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Melissa W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2015) (quoting Maricopa Cnty.