DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Reed v. Reed, 309 P.2d 790.

34 citing documents.

  • Kumbera v. Manickam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Kumbera v. Manickam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    See Reed v. Reed, 7 KUMBERA v. MANICKAM Decision of the Court (“If appellant was dissatisfied with the state of the record, it was his duty to further enlighten the court.”).
  • Li v. Zhao Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Li v. Zhao Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    (stating that a party’s “fail[ure] to adduce evidence of the value [of property] is not to be blamed on the trial judge”).
  • Hurtado v. Hurtado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Hurtado v. Hurtado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Cereceres v. Cereceres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Cereceres v. Cereceres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (when the parties do not present evidence of the value of the property to be divided, “[t]he sole duty of the judge [is] to use his best judgment under the circumstances”).
  • Beasley-Rodriguez v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Beasley-Rodriguez v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Biddulph v. Biddulph 711 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Biddulph v. Biddulph 711 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Hatch v. Hatch 547 P.2d 1044 Ariz. 1976
  • Hatch v. Hatch 547 P.2d 1044 Ariz. 1976
    And see also, , and Honig v. Honig, supra.
  • Hatch v. Hatch 534 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Hatch v. Hatch 534 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • 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
    Wine v. Wine, 14 Ariz.App.
  • Becchelli v. Becchelli 497 P.2d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Becchelli v. Becchelli 497 P.2d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    .” ( 104 Ariz. at 23 , 448 P.2d at 79 ).
  • Finck v. Finck 452 P.2d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Finck v. Finck 452 P.2d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Nace v. Nace 448 P.2d 76 Ariz. 1968
  • Nace v. Nace 448 P.2d 76 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
    normally divided between the husband and wife in a “substantially equivalent” manner, (2) that for “reason requiring a contrary action” the court may make an unequal division, and (3) that the trial court’s broad discretionary power in determining what is “just and right” in the division of community property will not be disturbed on appeal unless such discretion has been “abused.” , , , Schwartz v. Durham.
  • O'Leary v. O'Leary 431 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • O'Leary v. O'Leary 431 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    A, as amended; , , , , and precludes legitimate complaint from the defendant.
  • Britz v. Britz 389 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1964
  • Britz v. Britz 389 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1964
    We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding to the plaintiff the ‘lion’s share’
  • Matlow v. Matlow 361 P.2d 648 Ariz. 1961
  • Matlow v. Matlow 361 P.2d 648 Ariz. 1961
  • Stauss v. Stauss 312 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1957
  • Stauss v. Stauss 312 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1957
    and we Lave nothing new to add to the principles there announced.