Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mortensen v. Knight, 305 P.2d 463.

36 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
(“dispose” in dissolution context means relinquish control and management).
In Re the Estate of Fred N. Kirkes 295 P.3d 432 Ariz. 2013
In Re the Estate of Fred N. Kirkes 295 P.3d 432 Ariz. 2013
¶9 Gail counters that we have applied an item theory in two other cases, P. 426 (1914), disapproved of by Mortensen v. Knight, 81 Ariz. 325, 331, and In re Monaghan’s Estate, 65 Ariz. 9
ALOSI v. Hewitt 276 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
ALOSI v. Hewitt 276 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 23 The doctrine was nominally applied to impose liability on a
In Re the Estate of Fred N. Kirkes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
In Re the Estate of Fred N. Kirkes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
¶11 Gail, however, P. 426 (1914)
Young v. Beck 251 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2011
Young v. Beck 251 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2011
Similarly, in Mortensen v. Knight, we noted that “the family purpose doctrine is the settled law of this jurisdiction” and that “[a]gency, not ownership, is the test of liability.” 333
Grand Canyon Trust v. Arizona Corp. Commission 107 P.3d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Grand Canyon Trust v. Arizona Corp. Commission 107 P.3d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Branaman Contractor, Inc.
Geronimo Hotel & Lodge v. Putzi 728 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1986
Geronimo Hotel & Lodge v. Putzi 728 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1986
ized “that the community property laws of Arizona are more like those of Washington than of any other state, and that the rulings of the courts of that state are very persuasive when similar questions arise under our law.” , ( , )
Peagler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 547 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Peagler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 547 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Even so, appellants’ , which permitted recovery from the community property of a surviving husband for the negligence of his spouse in operating a community automobile, based on the family purpose doctrine.
Gilbert v. McGhee 524 P.2d 157 Ariz. 1974
Gilbert v. McGhee 524 P.2d 157 Ariz. 1974
See, e. g., , 382 P.2d *124 659 (1963)
Union Bank v. Pfeffer 502 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Union Bank v. Pfeffer 502 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
is submitted as authority for the proposition that a spouse is personally liable for community debts.
Compton v. National Metals Company 459 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Compton v. National Metals Company 459 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
In such situations the court is justified in entering summary judgment for the moving party, if the facts show that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Roy Harmon et al. v. LaVerne R. Szrama et al. (1967), , ; Eastwood Electric Co. v. R. L. Branaman Contractor, Inc. (1967)
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
that community property rules apply “while they are living together,” does not require a conclusion that they do not apply while the parties are living apart under a legal separation.
McDowell v. Davis 442 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
McDowell v. Davis 442 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
For Arizona cases touching on this point, , 246 P. 546 (1926)
Gaethje v. Gaethje 441 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Gaethje v. Gaethje 441 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Our conclusion concerning Arizona law in this specific area of insurance law touching community property rights is strengthened by our Supreme Court’s , that, while the community property decisions of the State of Washington are informative, they are not necessarily more persuasive than those of California or Texas in determining the community property law of this state.
Pesqueira v. Talbot 441 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Pesqueira v. Talbot 441 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
our Court stated that the family purpose doctrine “ * * * rests not on the ownership of the vehicle but upon the control and use.” (Emphasis ours.)
Eastwood Electric Co. v. R. L. Branaman Contractor, Inc. 432 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
Eastwood Electric Co. v. R. L. Branaman Contractor, Inc. 432 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
Chenowth v. Epperson 414 P.2d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Chenowth v. Epperson 414 P.2d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
See Wakeham v. Omega Construction Co., supra
Spector v. Spector 382 P.2d 659 Ariz. 1963
Spector v. Spector 382 P.2d 659 Ariz. 1963