DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Shaw v. Greer, 194 P.2d 430.

27 citing documents.

  • Lanier v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Lanier v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    But as the superior court explained, Husband’s “earnings during marriage were community property, even if deposited into an account in his name alone.” (In Arizona “the earnings of either of the spouses” while married “are community property”).
  • Rueschenberg v. Rueschenberg 196 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Rueschenberg v. Rueschenberg 196 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    the fruits of labor expended during marriage are community property ....”) ( , ).
  • Koelsch v. Koelsch 713 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1986
  • Koelsch v. Koelsch 713 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1986
    Finally, it is established law that while the fruits of labor expended during marriage are community property, , earnings after dissolution are separate property.
  • Vikse v. Johnson 672 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Vikse v. Johnson 672 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Selby v. Savard 655 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1982
  • Selby v. Savard 655 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1982
  • Cadwell v. Cadwell 616 P.2d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • Cadwell v. Cadwell 616 P.2d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    See also, in regard to community liability for the intentional tort of one spouse, , Auto ville, Inc. v. Friedman, 20 Ariz.App.
  • Hofmann Company v. Meisner 497 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Hofmann Company v. Meisner 497 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    A, , it is undeniable that execution of the guarantee which facilitated the extension of credit to the corporation was of a direct benefit- to the community.
  • Howe v. Haught 462 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Howe v. Haught 462 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Rodieck v. Rodieck 450 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Rodieck v. Rodieck 450 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    that community property rules apply “while they are living together,” does not require a conclusion that they do not apply while the parties are living apart under a legal separation.
  • King v. Uhlmann 437 P.2d 928 Ariz. 1968
  • Hays v. Richardson 386 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1964
  • Hays v. Richardson 386 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1964
    a case involving unlawful arrest and imprisonment, the community was absolved from liability.
  • Mortensen v. Knight 305 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1956
  • Mortensen v. Knight 305 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1956
  • Maricopa County v. Douglas 208 P.2d 646 Ariz. 1949
  • Maricopa County v. Douglas 208 P.2d 646 Ariz. 1949
    Cosper v. Valley Bank, supra; , .
  • Shaw v. Greer 194 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1948
  • Shaw v. Greer 194 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1948
    and that the *231 community is not liable for the separate debt of either of the spouses.