DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Smith v. Smith, 367 P.2d 230.

26 citing documents.

  • Ball v. Ball 478 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Ball v. Ball 478 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    (“[A] parent may not be deprived of the custody of a child because of the court’s disagreement with such parent as to religious beliefs.”).
  • Burk v. State 156 P.3d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Burk v. State 156 P.3d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    (“[I]f a teaching does not conflict with the fundamental law of the land a parent may not be deprived of the custody of a child because of the court’s disagreement with such parent as to religious beliefs.”); , (not
  • Black v. Black 560 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1977
  • Black v. Black 560 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1977
  • Porter v. Porter 518 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • Porter v. Porter 518 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • Stapley v. Stapley 485 P.2d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Stapley v. Stapley 485 P.2d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    Annot., 66 A.L.R.2d 1410 .(1959).
  • Johnson v. Johnson 479 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Johnson v. Johnson 479 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Brown v. Brown 459 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Brown v. Brown 459 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • 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
  • Dunbar v. Dunbar 429 P.2d 949 Ariz. 1967
  • Dunbar v. Dunbar 429 P.2d 949 Ariz. 1967
  • Allison v. Ovens 421 P.2d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Allison v. Ovens 421 P.2d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    children living with Defendant are adequately clothed and well groomed as contrasted to the Ovens children living with the Allison family, who when visiting in the Ovens home have to be furnished ample and clean clothing so they can attend church and likewise when taking trips with the Ovens children who reside with the Defendant.” , to support his contention that “neither religion, the lack of religion, nor a person’s creed can be constitutionally taken into consideration in a child custody act
  • Hoffman v. Hoffman 417 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • Hoffman v. Hoffman 417 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    modified as to other matters on rehearing
  • 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
  • Bailey v. Bailey 412 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • Bailey v. Bailey 412 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    modified as to other matters on rehearing