Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cross v. Cross, 381 P.2d 573.

40 citing documents.

McAlister v. Loeb Ariz. 2025
McAlister v. Loeb Ariz. 2025
(noting that “we will consider any legal theory within the issues and supported by the evidence which tends to support and sustain the judgment of the trial court”).
Rodriguez-Ramirez v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Rodriguez-Ramirez v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Hammett v. Hammett 453 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Hammett v. Hammett 453 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶20 We acknowledge that our supreme court once held that “where there was no valid marriage of appellant to appellee, there can be no acquisition of property rights based on their marital status.”
Riedel v. Fuentes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Riedel v. Fuentes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
First United v. La Jolla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
First United v. La Jolla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
1, ¶ 30 (App. 2015) (noting profits derived from existing community assets are subject to equitable division); see also ARCAP 13(b) (stating the appellate court may affirm judgment based on any grounds properly presented in the record); ¶ 4 (App. 2008) (“[W]e will affirm the court’s ruling on any legal theory supported by the record.”) ().
Pettit v. Pettit 189 P.3d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Pettit v. Pettit 189 P.3d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF ECON. SEC. v. Lee 175 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF ECON. SEC. v. Lee 175 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
[5] See, , ("This doctrine was not urged below, but we will consider any legal theory within the issues and supported by the evidence which tends to support and sustain the judgment of the trial court.").
Sobol v. Marsh 130 P.3d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Sobol v. Marsh 130 P.3d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Maricopa County 96 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Maricopa County 96 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
See Ariz. Water Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res., , ¶ 18 n. 10, , ¶ 18 n. 10 (2004) (stating appellate courts “will consider any legal theory within the issues and supported by the evidence which tends to support and sustain the judgment of the trial court”) ( , ); Coronado Co. Inc., 129 Ariz. at 139 , 629 P.2d at 555 (same).
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 91 P.3d 990 Ariz. 2004
Az Water Co v. Az Dept of Water Resources Ariz. 2004
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 91 P.3d 990 Ariz. 2004
(noting that this court "will consider any legal theory within the issues and supported by the evidence which tends to support and sustain the judgment of the trial court”).
Az Water Co v. Az Dept of Water Resources Ariz. 2004
(noting that this court “will consider any legal theory within the issues and supported by the evidence which tends to support and sustain the judgment of the trial court”).
Haynes v. Syntek Finance Corp. 909 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Haynes v. Syntek Finance Corp. 909 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Glaze v. Marcus 729 P.2d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Glaze v. Marcus 729 P.2d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Tennen v. Lane 716 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Tennen v. Lane 716 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Cook v. Cook 691 P.2d 664 Ariz. 1984
Cook v. Cook 691 P.2d 664 Ariz. 1984
Cook v. Cook 691 P.2d 713 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Cook v. Cook 691 P.2d 713 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Garza v. Fernandez, supra
Fendler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 636 P.2d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Fendler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 636 P.2d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Espil Sheep Co. Inc. v. Black Bill & Doney Parks Water Users Ass’n
Haenichen v. Worthington 449 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Haenichen v. Worthington 449 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Oney v. Barnes, 5 Ariz.App.
In Re the Estate of Milliman 415 P.2d 877 Ariz. 1966
In Re the Estate of Milliman 415 P.2d 877 Ariz. 1966
we reviewed the decisions in regard to presumption, including Kolombatovich, supra, after which we stated: “An examination of those decisions reveals that the presumption therein announced is not conclusive, nor does it place a burden upon the party attacking a marriage to prove beyond any possible do