DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cummings v. Lockwood, 327 P.2d 1012.

48 citing documents.

  • Schroeder v. Schroeder 778 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1989
  • Schroeder v. Schroeder 778 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1989
    addressed a decree that awarded alimony installments of $75 per month “for a period of six (6) months only.” Two days before the last payment was due, the wife sought a modification of the alimony award, including an increase in the amount and the length of alimony payments.
  • Snow v. Snow 745 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • Snow v. Snow 745 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    and cases following it, a fixed or lump sum spousal maintenance award payable in installments over a fixed period of time falls within an implied exception to the superior court’s statutory post-decree powers, and cannot be modified.
  • Dooley v. Dooley 708 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Dooley v. Dooley 708 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    held that a fixed amount of spousal maintenance (or alimony as it was then termed) payable in installments was not subject to modification.
  • Raley v. Wilber 594 P.2d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Raley v. Wilber 594 P.2d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    Appellant concedes the changed circumstances but contends that this support provision is in principle non-modifiable for changed circumstances because it is a
  • Neal v. Neal 570 P.2d 758 Ariz. 1977
  • Neal v. Neal 570 P.2d 758 Ariz. 1977
    921 (1940), , : “We are living in an era of feminine equality, unhesitating separations and rapid readjustments.
  • Lindsay v. Lindsay 565 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Lindsay v. Lindsay 565 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    in which the purpose of providing for a gross and unmodifiable amount of alimony was said to be “to define and fix with finality the scope of the rights and obligations of the parties ...
  • Fye v. Zigoures 562 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Fye v. Zigoures 562 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    Bennett v. Bennett, 17 Ariz.App.
  • Neal v. Neal 571 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • Neal v. Neal 571 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • Lloyd v. Lloyd 553 P.2d 684 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Lloyd v. Lloyd 553 P.2d 684 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    Bennett v. Bennett, 17 Ariz.App.
  • O'Hair v. O'Hair 508 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1973
  • O'Hair v. O'Hair 508 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1973
    we laid down the test that the awarding of support and maintenance for the wife is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and this Court will not interfere with such discretion unless it is clear that some injustice has been done.
  • Bennett v. Bennett 495 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • Bennett v. Bennett 495 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
    our supreme court held that such an award is not subject to modification.
  • Nace v. Nace 489 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1971
  • Nace v. Nace 489 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1971
  • Gage v. Gage 462 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Gage v. Gage 462 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    Although we agree that an alimony award which is clearly excessive and oppressive may be upset as an abuse of discretion, , 274 P. 638 (1929); , we cannot agree with the appellant that the facts presented demonstrate such an abuse.
  • Aliprandini v. Aliprandini 455 P.2d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Aliprandini v. Aliprandini 455 P.2d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Earley v. Earley 430 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Earley v. Earley 430 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Bartholomew v. Superior Court 417 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • Bartholomew v. Superior Court 417 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    se and alter the portions of the decree which relate to payment of money for the support and maintenance of the wife or the expenses of the proceedings, as may be just, and may amend, change or alter any provision of the judgment respecting the care, custody or maintenance of the children of the parties as circumstances of the parents and welfare of the children require.” , the Supreme Court indicated that the two statutory provisions, A.R.S.
  • Warren v. Warren 407 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • Warren v. Warren 407 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
    And, while we agree in principle with appellant’s contention that an award which is clearly excessive and oppressive may be upset as an abuse of discretion, , 274 P. 638 (1929); , we disagree with the argument that the facts presented demonstrate such an abuse.
  • Bergman v. Bergman 401 P.2d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • Bergman v. Bergman 401 P.2d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
    Our court has further stated: “It is established in this jurisdiction that the awarding of support and maintenance for the wife is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and this court will not interfere with such discretion unless it is clear that some injustice has been done.”
  • Barnett v. Barnett 388 P.2d 433 Ariz. 1964
  • Barnett v. Barnett 388 P.2d 433 Ariz. 1964
  • Enloe v. Baker 383 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1963
  • Enloe v. Baker 383 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1963
    In other words, a statute must receive such construction as will make all its parts harmonize with *300 each other, and render them consistent with its general scope and object.’ ” , ; , ; , .
  • Spector v. Spector 382 P.2d 659 Ariz. 1963
  • Spector v. Spector 382 P.2d 659 Ariz. 1963
    The amount of alimony given the wife is also within the sound discretion of the trial court, , , and the use of the words “until her death or remarriage” cannot be considered a restriction upon the power of the trial court to modify the decree as is contended.
  • Kingsbery v. Kingsbery 379 P.2d 893 Ariz. 1963
  • Kingsbery v. Kingsbery 379 P.2d 893 Ariz. 1963
    and approved in Cummings *227 v. Lockwood, , , 1015: “The several provisions of the statute should be construed together in the light of the general purpose and object of the act and so as to give effect to the main intent and purpose of the legislature as therein expressed.
  • Simpson v. Superior Court 351 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1960
  • Simpson v. Superior Court 351 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1960
  • State Tax Commission v. Wallapai Brick & Clay Products, Inc. 330 P.2d 988 Ariz. 1958
  • State Tax Commission v. Wallapai Brick & Clay Products, Inc. 330 P.2d 988 Ariz. 1958
    684 , in part, as follows: “1 * * * Instead, the exemption statute says, in effect, that whenever in the course of operation of any of the businesses subject to this tax, a sale of tangible personal property is made to the government, the amount of that sale shall be deducted from the total amount of the business upon which the tax is due.’” [ , .]