Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lawson v. Ridgeway, 233 P.2d 459.

72 citing documents.

Hani W Saba v. Sawsan Khoury 516 P.3d 891 Ariz. 2022
Hani W Saba v. Sawsan Khoury 516 P.3d 891 Ariz. 2022
Brucklier v. Brucklier 516 P.3d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Brucklier v. Brucklier 516 P.3d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Gonzalez v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Gonzalez v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Stock v. Stock 479 P.3d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Stock v. Stock 479 P.3d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Femiano v. Maust 463 P.3d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Femiano v. Maust 463 P.3d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Butler-Hintz v. Hintz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Butler-Hintz v. Hintz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(applying a value-at-dissolution formula to rental home business).
Valento v. Valento 240 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Valento v. Valento 240 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
-65 (1951) (“[T]he separate estate of a member of the community must reimburse the community for any proper improvements made in good faith upon the separate estate with community funds.” (citation omitted)).
In Re Marriage of Flower 225 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Marriage of Flower 225 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
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
298 P. 929 (1931); , In re Torrey’s Estate
McCready v. McCready 810 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
McCready v. McCready 810 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Occhino v. Occhino 793 P.2d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Occhino v. Occhino 793 P.2d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Drahos v. Rens 717 P.2d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Drahos v. Rens 717 P.2d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Hanrahan v. Sims, 20 Ariz.App.
In Re Marriage of Berger 680 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
In Re Marriage of Berger 680 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Sabel 674 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Sabel 674 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Not only is it admissible through judicial notice, , , in some jurisdictions it has been held to be conclusive.
Honnas v. Honnas 648 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1982
Honnas v. Honnas 648 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1982
Potthoff v. Potthoff 627 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Potthoff v. Potthoff 627 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Tester v. Tester 597 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Tester v. Tester 597 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Nelson v. Nelson 560 P.2d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Nelson v. Nelson 560 P.2d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
where the husband was a partner in a general merchandise store in a small town, , where the husband was a partner in a restaurant, the court rejected the idea that the salary account of a partner is in every instance the extent of the contri
Noble v. Noble 546 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Noble v. Noble 546 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Everson v. Everson 537 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Everson v. Everson 537 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Spector v. Spector 531 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Spector v. Spector 531 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Obviously, the provision is intended to take into account earnings received by each party resulting from separate ownership of income-producing assets, thus avoiding the confusion in ownership arising from “mixed income.” See, for example
Hanrahan v. Sims 512 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Hanrahan v. Sims 512 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
for the proposition that when community funds have been used to place improvements upon the separate property of one of the spouses, the community is entitled to reimbursement for the enhancement in value occasioned by such improvements.
Bourne v. Lord 506 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Bourne v. Lord 506 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Hofstra v. Hofstra 474 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Hofstra v. Hofstra 474 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
We have reviewed a , ; , ; , ; , and it is our opinion that under the facts before us the Arizona case law does not ■ compel á conclusion which differs from the one reached by the trial court.
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
Our Supreme Court has also said that the status of property may be changed from community property to some other status, according to the agreement of the parties, , , , 29 A.L.R.2d 518 (1951); , , 298 P. 929 (1931), or by deed from one to the other, , 60 P. 888 (1900).