Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Lynch's Estate, 377 P.2d 199.

25 citing documents.

Astorga v. Wing 118 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Astorga v. Wing 118 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
See Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Recognition of Tribal Court Civil Judgments, Rule 5; Tracy v. Su/perior Court, , (“Arizona courts have consistently afforded full recognition to tribal court proceedings.”); In re Lynch’s Estate, , (Navajo tribal court proceedings should be treated the same as court proceedings in a foreign state or country.); Canby, William C., Jr., American Indian Law in a Nutshell, 212 (3rd ed.1998).
Tracy v. Superior Court 810 P.2d 1030 Ariz. 1991
Tracy v. Superior Court 810 P.2d 1030 Ariz. 1991
(divorce decree issued by Hopi tribal court was conclusive and binding against challenge in state superior court as a matter of comity and out of deference and mutual respect); In re Lynch’s Estate, , (holding that proceedings in Nayajo tribal court must be treated the same as proceedings in a court of another state, and therefore that a will admitted to probate in Navajo tribal court should have been given effect in ancillary proceedings in state superior court).
Dixon v. Picopa Construction Co. 772 P.2d 1104 Ariz. 1989
Dixon v. Picopa Construction Co. 772 P.2d 1104 Ariz. 1989
In , we held that a will admitted to probate in Navajo Tribal Court was a will “admitted to probate in another state or foreign country” for Arizona probate purposes.
Martinez v. Superior Court, La Paz County 731 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Martinez v. Superior Court, La Paz County 731 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
the Arizona Supreme Court held that proceedings in a Navajo tribal court must be considered the same as proceedings in a court of any state or foreign country.
Leon v. Numkena 689 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Leon v. Numkena 689 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
See also In re Lynch’s Estate, , (“proceedings held in the Navajo Tribal Court must be treated the same as proceedings in a court of another state or foreign country ...”).
Ivancovich v. Meier 595 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1979
Ivancovich v. Meier 595 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1979
Brown v. Babbitt Ford, Inc. 571 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Brown v. Babbitt Ford, Inc. 571 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Likewise, In re Lynch’s Estate, , the Arizona Supreme Court recognized that a will admitted to probate in the Navajo Tribal Court should be admitted in state court without further proof under A.R.S.
Norman v. Transamerica Title Insurance 495 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1972
Shields v. Shields 489 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Shields v. Shields 489 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Norman v. Transamerica Title Insurance 485 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Norman v. Transamerica Title Insurance 485 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
In determining this question California law is instructive as we have adopted our probate statutes from California, In re Lynch’s Estate, , ; .
Johnson v. Collins 464 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Johnson v. Collins 464 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
In Matter of Estates of Garcia 436 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
In Matter of Estates of Garcia 436 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
345 , In re Lynch’s Estate
City of Tucson v. Superior Court of Pima County 406 P.2d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
City of Tucson v. Superior Court of Pima County 406 P.2d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965