Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Webb's Adoption, 177 P.2d 222.

35 citing documents.

Griggs v. Oasis Adoption Services, Inc. 383 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Griggs v. Oasis Adoption Services, Inc. 383 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See In re Webb’s Adoption, (adoption is a purely statutory right unknown at common law); (“An adoption proceeding is a statutory one, and is governed by the terms of the statute providing for it.”).
Matter of Estate of Ryan 928 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Matter of Estate of Ryan 928 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In re Webb’s Adoption, , -24 (1947); Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. A-25646, , Anguis v. Superior Court, 6 Ariz.App.
Sleeseman v. State Board of Education 753 P.2d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Sleeseman v. State Board of Education 753 P.2d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
In re Webb’s Adoption, , Chapp v. High School District No. 1 of Pima County, , Ops.Att’y Gen.
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. A-27789 680 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1984
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. A-27789 680 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1984
Goclanney v. Desrochers 660 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Goclanney v. Desrochers 660 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
484 , 56 So.2d 844 (1952); In Re Webb’s Adoption, , Brown v. Hall, 385 Ill.
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. B-8736 647 P.2d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. B-8736 647 P.2d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
A husband and wife may jointly adopt children.” As was stated In re Webb’s Adoption, , : “The right of adoption was unknown to the common law and repugnant to its principles.
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. A-25646 637 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. A-25646 637 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Chapp v. HIGH SCH. DIST. NO. 1 OF PIMA CTY. 574 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Chapp v. HIGH SCH. DIST. NO. 1 OF PIMA CTY. 574 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
The court in Harper equates “residence” in a statute requiring tuition with the common law concept of “domicile.” See also In Re Webb’s Adoption, , in which the court said: “An infant is not sui juris and therefore cannot fix or change his domicile.
Garay Uppen v. Superior Court of Pima County 567 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Garay Uppen v. Superior Court of Pima County 567 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Tencza v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company 521 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Tencza v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company 521 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
In re Webb’s Adoption, , 177 P.2d *556 222 (1947); Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 248 La.
In Re Adoption of Baby Boy 472 P.2d 64 Ariz. 1970
Natural Mother v. Adopting Parents 472 P.2d 64 Ariz. 1970
Natural Mother v. Adopting Parents 472 P.2d 64 Ariz. 1970
In such cases, the court shall make written findings of all facts upon which its order is founded.” In In re Webb’s Adoption, , , this Court, in referring to jurisdiction of adoptions, stated: “The right of adoption was unknown to the common law and repugnant to its principles.
In Re Adoption of Baby Boy 472 P.2d 64 Ariz. 1970
In , , this Court, in referring to jurisdiction of adoptions, stated: "The right of adoption was unknown to the common law and repugnant to its principles.
Johnson v. Johnson 462 P.2d 782 Ariz. 1969
Johnson v. Johnson 462 P.2d 782 Ariz. 1969
See also In re Webb’s Adoption, , .
Anguis v. Superior Court 429 P.2d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Anguis v. Superior Court 429 P.2d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
In Re Hughes 237 P.2d 1009 Ariz. 1951
Hughes v. Industrial Commission 211 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1949
Hughes v. Industrial Commission 211 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1949
In Re Adoption of Wilcox 204 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1949
In Re Adoption of Wilcox 204 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1949
Pursuant to a motion -for a rehearing, we reconsidered our action, and relying in part upon the case of In re Webb’s Adoption, , (wherein we considered an appeal from a similar inter *211 locutory order upon its merits, the question however of a right of appeal being neither raised by the parties nor passed upon by the court), we on June 18, 1948, improvidently vacated the previous order, thus reinstating the appeal.
Westerlund v. Croaff 198 P.2d 842 Ariz. 1948
Westerlund v. Croaff 198 P.2d 842 Ariz. 1948
See also In re Webb’s Adoption, , ; Furgeson v. Jones, 17 Or.