Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Westerlund v. Croaff, 198 P.2d 842.

37 citing documents.

Club West v. Shea homes/the Edge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Club West v. Shea homes/the Edge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
appropriate to prevent the superior court from acting without jurisdiction.”); (“[A] writ of prohibition lies to prevent an inferior tribunal from acting without or in excess of its jurisdiction.”).
Timothy B. v. dcs/h.B. Ariz. 2022
Timothy B. v. dcs/h.B. Ariz. 2022
In Re the Appeal in Navajo County Juvenile Action No. JA-691 831 P.2d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
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
Lee v. Superior Court, in and for County of Pima 540 P.2d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Lee v. Superior Court, in and for County of Pima 540 P.2d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
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
181.” , , we interpreted the question of whether the consent of the parents or guardian was essential to the jurisdiction of the court in an adoption proceeding under the statute that existed at that time.
In Re Adoption of Baby Boy 472 P.2d 64 Ariz. 1970
we interpreted the question of whether the consent of the parents or guardian was essential to the jurisdiction of the court in an adoption proceeding under the statute that existed at that time.
In Re Adoption of Baby Boy 455 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Natural Mother v. Adopting Parents 455 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
In Re Adoption of Baby Boy 455 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
In my opinion the basic issues should be resolved as follows: , , in support of her position that the trial court erred in entering an interlocutory order and in finding that it was to the best interest of the minor child that the petition for adoption be granted.
In Re Adoption of Krueger 436 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
In Re Adoption of Krueger 436 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
This section was added to the statute by the legislature in 1952
Steffen v. Bunker 436 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Steffen v. Bunker 436 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
In such cases, the court shall make written findings of all facts upon which its order is founded.” This section was added to the statute by the legislature in 1952
In Re Adoption of Luke 414 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
In Re Adoption of Luke 414 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Peterson v. Jacobson 411 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Peterson v. Jacobson 411 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Emery v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 360 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1961
Emery v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 360 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1961
See e. g., , ; , ; D. W. Onan & , .
State Board of Technical Registration v. McDaniel 326 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1958
State Board of Technical Registration v. McDaniel 326 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1958
See, 42 , , for a full discussion of the relevant factors, with many authorities ; 42 Am.Jur., Prohibition, section 9, as to test of adequacy.
In Re the Adoption of Holman 295 P.2d 372 Ariz. 1956
In Re the Adoption of Holman 295 P.2d 372 Ariz. 1956
See also In re Clough, 28 * P. 700 ; , ; , .
Anderson v. Pima County Department of Public Welfare 271 P.2d 884 Ariz. 1954
Anderson v. Pima County Department of Public Welfare 271 P.2d 884 Ariz. 1954
Their consent is not jurisdictional under the present law, , , has no application under the law as now amended.
City of Tucson v. Garrett 267 P.2d 717 Ariz. 1954
Loftus v. Russell 212 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1949
Loftus v. Russell 212 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1949
See Redewill v. Superior Court , ; Van Dyke v. Superior Court, *253 , 211 P. 576 ; , .
Shumway v. Farley 203 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1949
Shumway v. Farley 203 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1949
and cases cited therein.