Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re the Adoption of Holman, 295 P.2d 372.

57 citing documents.

Summers v. Gloor 368 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Summers v. Gloor 368 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
e jury’s answer to an interrogatory “as representing the true facts of the case”); see also Coronado Co. v. Jacome’s Dep’t Store, Inc., , (noting all findings necessary to sustain a judgment are implied therein so long as they are “reasonably supported by the evidence, and not in conflict with the express findings”) ( , ).
Pro Finish USA, Ltd. v. Johnson 63 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Pro Finish USA, Ltd. v. Johnson 63 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(findings necessary to sustain judgment, in addition to express findings, are implied in every judgment if reasonably supported by evidence and not in conflict with express findings).
In Re the Appeal in Navajo County Juvenile Action No. JA-691 831 P.2d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-2698 806 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-2698 806 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
The child cites Adoption of Holman, , for the proposition that in determining whether or not to invalidate the consent the juvenile court should have considered his best interests.
Higdon v. Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. 673 P.2d 907 Ariz. 1983
Higdon v. Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. 673 P.2d 907 Ariz. 1983
In Re Holman’s Adoption, , Coronado Co., Inc. v. Jacome’s Department Store, Inc.
Arizona Feeds v. a & R ARGO, INC. 666 P.2d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Arizona Feeds v. a & R ARGO, INC. 666 P.2d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
In re Holman’s Adoption, , Myrland v. Myrland, 19 Ariz.App.
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. A-26961 660 P.2d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. A-26961 660 P.2d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
See In re Holman’s Adoption, , Anonymous v. Anonymous, 23 Ariz.App.
Anonymous v. Fisher 637 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Anonymous v. Fisher 637 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Coronado Co. v. Jacome's Department Store, Inc. 629 P.2d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Coronado Co. v. Jacome's Department Store, Inc. 629 P.2d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
HML v. State 641 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
H. M. L. v. State 641 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
HML v. State 641 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
H. M. L. v. State 641 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
In Re the Appeal in Gila County Juvenile Action No. 3824 601 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
In Re the Appeal in Gila County Juvenile Action No. 3824 601 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
In re Holman’s Adoption, , Acedo v. State, Department of Public Welfare, 20 Ariz.App.
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. B-7087 577 P.2d 714 Ariz. 1978
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. B-7087 577 P.2d 714 Ariz. 1978
See In re Holman’s Adoption, , P.2d 896 (1975); Acedo v. State, 20 Ariz.App.
Anonymous v. Anonymous 530 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Anonymous v. Anonymous 530 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
The continued integrity of the adoption procedure demands that a consentor be held to the *54 natural consequences of his or her actions, absent the presence of highly important countervailing policy considerations as discussed in Holman, supra [In re Holman’s Adoption, , ].” 20 Ariz.App.
Acedo v. State, Department of Public Welfare 513 P.2d 1350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Acedo v. State, Department of Public Welfare 513 P.2d 1350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
trial judge informally stated at the end of the hearing that “because of the nature of this case”, he “would resolve in [petitioner’s] favor the fact she was confused about the six months.” The court did specifically find that the adoption agency had not engaged in threats, coercion or fraud in obtaining the petitioner’s consent, and therefore denied the petition based on In re Holman’s Adoption, , and In re Adoption of Hammer, 15 Ariz.App.
Myrland v. Myrland 508 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Myrland v. Myrland 508 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
76 , ; In re Holman’s Adoption
Mecham v. United Bank of Arizona 489 P.2d 247 Ariz. 1971
Mecham v. United Bank of Arizona 489 P.2d 247 Ariz. 1971
Bank, , 243 P. 598 (1926); In Re Holman’s Adoption, , City of Phoenix v. Burke, 9 Ariz.App.
In Re Adoption of Baby Boy 472 P.2d 64 Ariz. 1970
Natural Mother v. Adopting Parents 472 P.2d 64 Ariz. 1970
Natural Mother v. Adopting Parents 472 P.2d 64 Ariz. 1970
In *202 In re Holman’s Adoption, , , we held: “ * * * We have frequently held, however, that there is implied in every judgment a finding of fact in addition to express findings made by the court necessary to sustain the judgment if such additional findings are reasonably supported by the evidence and not in conflict with express finding
In Re Adoption of Baby Boy 472 P.2d 64 Ariz. 1970
In *202 , , we held: "* * * We have frequently held, however, that there is implied in every judgment a finding of fact in addition to express findings made by the court necessary to sustain the judgment if such additional findings are reasonably supported by the evidence and not in conflict with express findings
In Re Adoption of Baby Boy 455 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Natural Mother v. Adopting Parents 455 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
In Re Adoption of Baby Boy 455 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Arizona has a number of judicial decisions involving cases where the natural mother of the child has consented to the adoption and later has endeavored to retract the consent ( , , )
Natural Mother v. Adopting Parents 455 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Arizona has a number of judicial decisions involving cases where the natural mother of the child has consented to the adoption and later has endeavored to retract the consent ( , In Re Holman’s Adoption, , )
Steffen v. Bunker 448 P.2d 82 Ariz. 1968
In Re Adoption of Krueger 448 P.2d 82 Ariz. 1968
In Re Adoption of Krueger 448 P.2d 82 Ariz. 1968
Steffen v. Bunker 448 P.2d 82 Ariz. 1968
(See In re Holman’s Adoption, , ).
In re Minors 432 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
In re Minors 432 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
And it has been stated broadly that in a proceeding for adoption the court may ignore 'the natural rights of the parent if, in doing so, the child’s welfare is promoted.” In re Holman’s Adoption
Fenter v. Gruensfelder 422 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
In Re Anonymous 422 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
In Re Anonymous 422 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967