DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Crook v. Crook, 296 P.2d 951.

30 citing documents.

  • Guerra v. Bejarano 133 P.3d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • Guerra v. Bejarano 133 P.3d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    The court reasoned that because our supreme court had held that a minor child’s marriage automatically terminates the support obligation without any need to seek modification, , and because parents are only obligated to support their unemancipated children, A.R.S.
  • State ex rel. Department of Economic Security v. Demetz 130 P.3d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • State ex rel. Department of Economic Security v. Demetz 130 P.3d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    -77 , In re Marriage of Fetters, 41 Colo.
  • Guzman v. Guzman 854 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Guzman v. Guzman 854 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    In its judgment and order entered in January of 1991, , “upon marriage of a minor child no further action is needed by the non-custodial parent to terminate support payments previously ordered.” It found that the minor child had married in April of 1989, and that child support payments of $235 per month had been made thereafter by wage assignment thr
  • Matter of Estate of Patterson 805 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Shaw v. Quaintance 805 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Matter of Estate of Patterson 805 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Shaw v. Quaintance 805 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Weaver v. Weaver 643 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1982
  • Weaver v. Weaver 643 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1982
    ” Because the standards to be applied in a dissolution proceeding are those of an equity court, , , we concluded that by exercising its equitable powers the court, without exceeding its statutory authority, was able to direct the defendant-wife to relinquish possession of the money.
  • Stanley v. Stanley 535 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Stanley v. Stanley 535 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • 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
    Appellee acknowledges the foregoing principle of law, but argues that since a court retains jurisdiction to direct a modification effective from the date a petition for such modification is filed, McClanahan, supra; , and since appellee filed a petition to modify the support order in October of 1968, the amendment was properly entered.
  • 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
    For example, , involving the liability of a father for support of a married daughter where the judgment of divorce required support until majority (then 21 years) and the married daughter had not yet obtained the age of 21: "The termination of the parental duty-relationship by her marriage had a direct effect u
  • Wick v. Wick 489 P.2d 19 Ariz. 1971
  • Wick v. Wick 489 P.2d 19 Ariz. 1971
    Genda v. Superior Court, County of Pima
  • Johnson v. Johnson 455 P.2d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Johnson v. Johnson 455 P.2d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    58 A.L.R.2d 352 (1956); , , , 94 A.L.R.
  • Genda v. Superior Court, County of Pima 439 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1968
  • Genda v. Superior Court, County of Pima 439 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1968
    Crook v. Crook, SO Ariz. 275, 278, , 58 A.L.R.2d 352 (1956)
  • Cole v. Cole 420 P.2d 167 Ariz. 1966
  • Cole v. Cole 420 P.2d 167 Ariz. 1966
    58 A.L.R.2d 352 , we stated: “It should be remembered that the standards to be applied in this divorce proceeding are those of the equity court, since we have long recognized that such are considered equitable actions.
  • Atkinson v. Atkinson 405 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • Atkinson v. Atkinson 405 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • McClanahan v. Hawkins 367 P.2d 196 Ariz. 1961
  • McClanahan v. Hawkins 367 P.2d 196 Ariz. 1961
    58 A.L.R.2d 352 ; , ; , , 94 A.L.R.