DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Franklin v. Franklin, 253 P.2d 337.

36 citing documents.

  • Zennaro v. Zennaro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Zennaro v. Zennaro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (“The law furnishes no rule that will unscramble and separate” separate funds from community funds where they are “so mixed that no intelligent segregation can be made.”); (holding rent from separate property becomes a community asset where the spouse “ma[kes] no effort to keep the income from her separate property apart from the community funds”).
  • Marriage of Fenn v. Fenn 847 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Marriage of Fenn v. Fenn 847 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    (foster parents); , (grandparents); , (step-parents).
  • Rourk v. State 821 P.2d 273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Rourk v. State 821 P.2d 273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    Foster parents, on the other hand, although standing in loco parentis, do not have a legal duty to support a foster child, and significantly, upon assumption of that obligation are “free to cast such obligation at any time.” 107 Ariz. at 431 , 489 P.2d at 241 (citing Estate of Harris, , 140 P. 825 (1914); , ).
  • Lindsay v. Lindsay 565 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Lindsay v. Lindsay 565 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Harris v. Harris 511 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Harris v. Harris 511 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Witherspoon v. Witherspoon 498 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • Witherspoon v. Witherspoon 498 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
    that on dissolution of the community by divorce the disposition must be one which in the absence of some reason requiring a contrary action is substantially equivalent in the parts received by each of the spouses, , , although there is no specific duty imposed on the trial court to make an equal division of the community property, , .
  • Nace v. Nace 489 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1971
  • Solomon v. Harman 489 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1971
  • Nace v. Nace 489 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1971
    If alimony is not necessary for a wife’s support and maintenance, then the husband should not be required to pay it, , , 274 P. 638 (1929).
  • Solomon v. Harman 489 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1971
    Estate of Harris, , 140 P. 825 (1914)
  • Aliprandini v. Aliprandini 455 P.2d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Aliprandini v. Aliprandini 455 P.2d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Porreca v. Porreca 446 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • Porreca v. Porreca 446 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • Nace v. Nace 432 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • Nace v. Nace 432 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • Norton v. Norton 420 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1966
  • Norton v. Norton 420 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1966
  • DeMarce v. DeMarce 419 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1966
  • DeMarce v. DeMarce 419 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1966
  • Kennedy v. Kennedy 379 P.2d 966 Ariz. 1963
  • Kennedy v. Kennedy 379 P.2d 966 Ariz. 1963
    The factors to be considered include the needs of the wife and her ability to support herself, , the ability of the husband to pay, , 274 P. 638 (1929); and the other circumstances of the parties including their standard of living.
  • Smith v. Smith 358 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1960
  • Smith v. Smith 358 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1960
    The trial court is in a better position to determine what is right and just than we are, and, unless the allowance clearly and palpably is erroneous or excessive, we would not feel like disturbing it.” , , that the “husband should not be required to pay alimony to the wife unless the evidence shows that alimony is necessary for the support and maintenance of the wife.”' The plaintiff contends that the defendant received a substantial money settlement and that this together with income from a tru
  • Cummings v. Lockwood 327 P.2d 1012 Ariz. 1958
  • Cummings v. Lockwood 327 P.2d 1012 Ariz. 1958
  • Reed v. Reed 309 P.2d 790 Ariz. 1957
  • Reed v. Reed 309 P.2d 790 Ariz. 1957
    hat on dissolution of the community by divorce the disposition must be one which in the absence of some reason requiring a contrary action is substantially equivalent in the parts received by each of the spouses, , , although there is no specific duty imposed on- the trial court to make an equal division of the community property, , .