DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Burk v. Burk, 205 P.2d 583.

35 citing documents.

  • Wilcox v. Wilcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Wilcox v. Wilcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • French v. Montiel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • French v. Montiel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    “[T]he burden is on the moving party to satisfy the court that conditions and circumstances have so changed after the original decree as to justify the modification.”
  • Bosch v. Bosch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Bosch v. Bosch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Backstrand, 250 Ariz. at 344, ¶¶ 17-18; (the moving party has the burden to satisfy the court that conditions and circumstances have changed to justify the modification).
  • Backstrand v. Backstrand 479 P.3d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Backstrand v. Backstrand 479 P.3d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    “[T]he burden is on the moving party to satisfy the court that conditions and circumstances have so changed after the original decree as to justify the modification.”
  • Engstrom v. McCarthy 411 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Engstrom v. McCarthy 411 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    unless it finds that adequate cause for hearing the motion is established by the pleadings"); cf. Burk v. Burk , , 309, (noting that a modification of custody requires "that a change of conditions and circumstances be shown, or new facts presented, which were unknown to the applicant at the time the decree was entered").
  • Hunt v. Hunt 529 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Hunt v. Hunt 529 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Hofstra v. Mahoney 499 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Hofstra v. Mahoney 499 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Johnson v. Johnson 479 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Johnson v. Johnson 479 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Brown v. Brown 459 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Brown v. Brown 459 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    rein on the 25th day of November, 1964, and which are inconsistent with the provisions hereof, be, and the same are hereby set aside and rendered of no further force and affect whatsoever, and that all of the provisions of said judgment of the said 25th day of November, 1964, and which are not inconsistent herewith be, and the same are hereby, reaffirmed, confirmed and ratified.” , the Supreme Court stated the rule that a change of circumstances must be shown “ * * * subsequent to the entry of a
  • Marley v. Spaulding 457 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Marley v. Spaulding 457 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Hutchison v. Hutchison 416 P.2d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • Hutchison v. Hutchison 416 P.2d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • Galbraith v. Galbraith 356 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1960
  • Galbraith v. Galbraith 356 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1960
    *362 , ; , ; , ; , ; , .
  • Ward v. Ward 353 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1960
  • Ward v. Ward 353 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1960
    Cone v. Righetti, supra.
  • Porter v. Stanford 347 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1959
  • Roberts v. Malott 292 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1956
  • Roberts v. Malott 292 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1956
    300 P. 186 ; , 271 P. 717 .
  • Schulze v. Schulze 284 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1955
  • Schulze v. Schulze 284 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1955
    *89 , , that: “Section 27-811, A.C.A.1939, authorizes the court after a divorce is granted to amend, change, or alter any provision therein respecting the care, custody, or maintenance of the children of the parties as the circumstances of the parents and the welfare of the children may require.
  • Davis v. Davis 277 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1954
  • Davis v. Davis 277 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1954
  • Cone v. Righetti 240 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1952
  • Cone v. Righetti 240 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1952
    We held, however, , , that: “* * in the absence of a showing that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred subsequent to the entry of a decree awarding custody of children to one of the parents or that there has been some misconduct on the part of the parent having custody, the decision of the court awarding