DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gillespie v. Gillespie, 242 P.2d 837.

32 citing documents.

  • Marriage of LaPrade v. LaPrade 941 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1997
  • Marriage of LaPrade v. LaPrade 941 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1997
    Once the contract is merged into the decree, the value attaching to the separation agreement is only historical.” , ( , ).
  • Keller v. Keller 671 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Keller v. Keller 671 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • States v. States 603 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1979
  • States v. States 603 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1979
  • Helber v. Frazelle 575 P.2d 1243 Ariz. 1978
  • Helber v. Frazelle 575 P.2d 1243 Ariz. 1978
  • Marshick v. Marshick 545 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • Marshick v. Marshick 545 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    In such cases merger does not occur whether or not the parties so intend.” (Emphasis in original) In support of these novel rules appellant cites Hough v. Hough, 26 Cal.2d 605
  • Lincoln v. Lincoln 539 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Lincoln v. Lincoln 539 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Savage v. Thompson 523 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Savage v. Thompson 523 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
    In other words, as we interpret Ruhsam , if the child support agreement has been merged in the courts’ , then the trial court loses its continuing jurisdiction, even in chilld support agreement cases, to enforce support payment accruing after the child reaches the age of 18 years.
  • Flynn v. Flynn 494 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Flynn v. Flynn 494 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    the court lacks power to modify the provisions of a judgment and decree of divorce unrelated to child support or alimony.”
  • Wick v. Wick 481 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Wick v. Wick 481 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • 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
    McWilliams v. McWilliams, 216 Ala.
  • Earley v. Earley 430 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Earley v. Earley 430 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Stone v. Stidham 393 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1964
  • Stone v. Stidham 393 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1964
  • Wright v. Stidham 390 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1964
  • Wright v. Stidham 390 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1964
  • McNelis v. Bruce 367 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1961
  • McNelis v. Bruce 367 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1961
    As such the agreement was not subject to modification by the court at a future date, , , and the obligations arising thereunder beting contractual are debts subject to garnishment.
  • Simpson v. Superior Court 351 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1960
  • Simpson v. Superior Court 351 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1960
  • Glassford v. Glassford 262 P.2d 382 Ariz. 1953
  • Glassford v. Glassford 262 P.2d 382 Ariz. 1953
    s amount received by the Defendant, William Alexander Glassford, from the Radio Corporation of America.” The plaintiff, Deborah Leighton Glass-ford, cross-appealed from that portion of the judgment “That the plaintiff is not entitled to any portion of the proceeds from the sale of defendant’s farm properties.” While this action was pending in the supreme court, , , was decided by this court and based on that decision, the defendant, William Alexander Glassford, filed his motion to dismiss the pl