Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Clifford v. Woodford, 320 P.2d 452.

34 citing documents.

Reid v. Reid 213 P.3d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Reid v. Reid 213 P.3d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(stating that the child’s best interest is the “primary consideration” and the “pole star” for the court); , (“In a custody case the primary duty of the court is to safeguard the best interests and welfare of the ch
Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Hays v. Gama 67 P.3d 695 Ariz. 2003
Hays v. Gama 67 P.3d 695 Ariz. 2003
See, (child’s best interest is the “primary consideration” and the “pole star” for the court); (same); (“In a custody case the primary duty
Finck v. O'Toole 880 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1994
Bryan v. Bryan 645 P.2d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Bryan v. Bryan 645 P.2d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
a natural father, Clifford, brought a habeas corpus action to obtain custody of his daughters.
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-561 638 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-561 638 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
In Re the Marriage of Gove 572 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
In Re the Marriage of Gove 572 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Smart v. Cantor 574 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1977
Smart v. Cantor 574 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1977
However, when a person petitions the court for a writ of habeas corpus in a child custody matter, the paramount issues are the best interests and the welfare of the child, “rather than the technical legal right of the parent.”
Morales v. Glenn 560 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1977
Morales v. Glenn 560 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1977
Both cases had for their purpose the same end result; therefore, their consolidation resulted in no prejudice to either party.”
Arias v. Abilez 521 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Arias v. Abilez 521 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Gowland v. Martin 520 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Gowland v. Martin 520 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Warren v. Meyers Ex Rel. Judge 516 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Warren v. Meyers Ex Rel. Judge 516 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Application of Stone, 14 Ariz.App.
Wise v. Wise 481 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Wise v. Wise 481 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Earley v. Earley 458 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Earley v. Earley 458 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
“ ‘Since the primary, paramount, and controlling consideration is the welfare of the child, Galbraith v. Galbraith, supra; , , that question is directed to the discretion of the trial court and in making its determination the court has a broad latitude.
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
Natural Mother v. Adopting Parents 455 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Borg v. Borg 413 P.2d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Borg v. Borg 413 P.2d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
“Since the primary, paramount, and controlling consideration is the welfare of the child, Galbraith v. Galbraith, supra; , , that question is directed to the discretion of the trial court and in making its determination the court has a broad latitude.
In Re Guardianship of Rodgers 413 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1966
In Re Guardianship of Rodgers 413 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1966
Since the primary, paramount, and controlling consideration is the welfare of the child, Galbraith v. Galbraith, supra; , , that question is directed to the discretion of the trial court and in making its determination the court has a broad latitude.