DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Evans v. Evans, 288 P.2d 775.

32 citing documents.

  • In Re the Marriage of Foster 376 P.3d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • In Re the Marriage of Foster 376 P.3d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    our supreme court noted that “[p]roperty acquired subsequent to marriage, except through gift, devise or descent, is presumed to be community property.” 4 IN RE MARRIAGE OF FOSTER Opinion of the Court ¶8
  • 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]
  • Standage v. Standage 711 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Standage v. Standage 711 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • 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
  • Cockrill v. Cockrill 601 P.2d 1334 Ariz. 1979
  • Cockrill v. Cockrill 601 P.2d 1334 Ariz. 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 contribution of the community.
  • 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
    See also, , Lawson v. Ridgeway, supra
  • Davis v. Davis 449 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Davis v. Davis 449 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    ed by the appellee during their marriage and contends that, although the property was taken only in his name, such property, nevertheless, is presumed to be community property, , In re Torrey’s Estate, , and that appellee did not overcome this presumption, , , , 29 A.L.R.2d 518 (1951); , Arizona Central Credit Union v. Holden, 6 Ariz.App.
  • Nace v. Nace 448 P.2d 76 Ariz. 1968
  • Nace v. Nace 448 P.2d 76 Ariz. 1968
    Porter v. Porter, supra; , ; , .
  • King v. Uhlmann 437 P.2d 928 Ariz. 1968
  • King v. Uhlmann 437 P.2d 928 Ariz. 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
    29 A.L.R.2d 518 (1951); , , and Estate of Torrey
  • Rau v. Rau 432 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • Rau v. Rau 432 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • Jacobs v. Jacobs 415 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • Jacobs v. Jacobs 415 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    Defendants take the position that community funds placed in a joint account for the convenience of the husband and wife do not lose their community property character unless the result is clearly intended, citing In re Baldwin’s Estate, , , as authority.
  • Grady v. Price 383 P.2d 173 Ariz. 1963
  • Grady v. Price 383 P.2d 173 Ariz. 1963
    Under these circumstances, the funds are presumed to be community funds
  • Kennedy v. Kennedy 379 P.2d 966 Ariz. 1963
  • Kennedy v. Kennedy 379 P.2d 966 Ariz. 1963
    *256 See also In re Stanger’s Estate
  • Stauss v. Stauss 312 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1957
  • Stauss v. Stauss 312 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1957