Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kingsbery v. Kingsbery, 379 P.2d 893.

49 citing documents.

Chauncey v. Chauncey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Chauncey v. Chauncey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
But where documentation had been lost or destroyed, the court could rely on “witness testimony which clearly and convincingly establishes a fact in the absence of documentary evidence,” as it found the evidence “to be acceptable and reasonable in supporting the tracing of a particular asset or to bridge a gap that is buttressed by ample documentary evidence.” -24 (1963) (court found the husband had explicitly traced his separate funds through his testimony and documentary evidence).
Stock v. Stock 479 P.3d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Stock v. Stock 479 P.3d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Beasley-Rodriguez v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Beasley-Rodriguez v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In Re Marriage of Flower 225 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Marriage of Flower 225 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Drahos v. Rens 717 P.2d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Drahos v. Rens 717 P.2d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Potthoff v. Potthoff 627 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Potthoff v. Potthoff 627 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Hatch v. Hatch 547 P.2d 1044 Ariz. 1976
Hatch v. Hatch 547 P.2d 1044 Ariz. 1976
Olsztyn v. Olsztyn 514 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Olsztyn v. Olsztyn 514 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Hanrahan v. Sims 512 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Hanrahan v. Sims 512 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
*317 to support her position that she was entitled to recover one-half of the total amount contributed by the community.
Bourne v. Lord 506 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Bourne v. Lord 506 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
In Re Estate of Sims 475 P.2d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
In Re Estate of Sims 475 P.2d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Hofstra v. Hofstra 474 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Hofstra v. Hofstra 474 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
supported the finding of the trial court in that case that the proceeds of the loan were separate funds.
Schock v. Schock 461 P.2d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Schock v. Schock 461 P.2d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
In Re O'Neil 453 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
In Re O'Neil 453 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
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
Our Supreme Court has also said that the status of property may be changed from community property to some other status, according to the agreement of the parties, , , , 29 A.L.R.2d 518 (1951); , , 298 P. 929 (1931), or by deed from one to the other, , 60 P. 888 (1900).
Nace v. Nace 448 P.2d 76 Ariz. 1968
Nace v. Nace 448 P.2d 76 Ariz. 1968
Heller v. Heller 438 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Heller v. Heller 438 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Pendente lite orders still have their place in obtaining advance costs and fees, but the judgment plays its part in the determination of the matters involved and the inequities arising therefrom may be corrected in proceedings after judgment.”
Associated Builders, Inc. v. Stovall 424 P.2d 455 Ariz. 1967
Associated Builders, Inc. v. Stovall 424 P.2d 455 Ariz. 1967
Chadwick v. Winn 421 P.2d 890 Ariz. 1966
Chadwick v. Winn 421 P.2d 890 Ariz. 1966
Porter v. Porter 416 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1966
Myers-Leiber Sign Co. v. Weirich 410 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Myers-Leiber Sign Co. v. Weirich 410 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Sampson v. Transport Indemnity Company 405 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Sampson v. Transport Indemnity Company 405 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Ganz v. Virdee, Inc. 400 P.2d 862 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Ganz v. Virdee, Inc. 400 P.2d 862 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Barnett v. Barnett 388 P.2d 433 Ariz. 1964
Barnett v. Barnett 388 P.2d 433 Ariz. 1964
However, in our recent decision, , , where the question as to attorney fees on appeal was raised, we said: “ * * * the provisions of Section 25-315 and Section 25-321, should be construed together to give effect and meaning to both.
Spector v. Spector 382 P.2d 659 Ariz. 1963
Spector v. Spector 382 P.2d 659 Ariz. 1963