Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kennedy v. Kennedy, 379 P.2d 966.

75 citing documents.

Dole v. Dole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Dole v. Dole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
"); -58 (1963) (noting the power to modify judgments on appeal "to effect a fair and equitable division of the community property, and to avoid the expense of a retrial of these issues"); ¶ 42 n.15 (App. 2006) (noting that the authority described in A.R.S.
Cauble v. Osselaer 722 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Cauble v. Osselaer 722 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
In Re the Marriage of Hinkston 653 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In Re the Marriage of Hinkston 653 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Lindsay v. Lindsay, supra.
Neely v. Neely 563 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Neely v. Neely 563 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Nesmith v. Nesmith 540 P.2d 1229 Ariz. 1975
Nesmith v. Nesmith 540 P.2d 1229 Ariz. 1975
Pyeatte v. Pyeatte 520 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Pyeatte v. Pyeatte 520 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Spector v. Spector, 17 Ariz.App.
Gutierrez v. Gutierrez 513 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Gutierrez v. Gutierrez 513 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Hamann v. Hamann 511 P.2d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Hamann v. Hamann 511 P.2d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Shaffer v. Shaffer, 16 Ariz.App.
Burkhardt v. Burkhardt 510 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1973
Burkhardt v. Burkhardt 510 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1973
Williams v. Williams 509 P.2d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Williams v. Williams 509 P.2d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Santa Maria v. Santa Maria 501 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Santa Maria v. Santa Maria 501 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
394 , has concisely stated this court’s position concerning alimony: “In determining what amount should be awarded as alimony the trial court has broad discretion, , and where there is any reasonable evidence to support the judgment of the trial court, we will not disturb it.
Davis v. Davis 499 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Davis v. Davis 499 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Linton v. Linton 499 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Linton v. Linton 499 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
See *563 , ” ( 107 Ariz. at 413 , 489 P.2d at 50 ); that the most important function of alimony is to provide support for the wife “as nearly as possible at the standard of living which she enjoyed during marriage, and thereby to prevent the wife’s becoming dependent upon public support or relief”; that the
Kamrath v. Kamrath 498 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Kamrath v. Kamrath 498 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Becchelli v. Becchelli 497 P.2d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Becchelli v. Becchelli 497 P.2d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
states the various principles which are controlling in determining the sufficiency of corroboration, and a review of the evidence shows that plaintiff’s testimony concerning his wife’s personal and housekeeping habits, together with the conditions in the house itself, were sufficiently corrobora
Spector v. Spector 496 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Spector v. Spector 496 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Corroborating testimony is sufficient if it tends to satisfy the impartial and reasonable mind that the plaintiff’s material testimony is true, (citations omitted).”
O'Connor v. O'Connor 494 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
O'Connor v. O'Connor 494 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Shaffer v. Shaffer 494 P.2d 730 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Shaffer v. Shaffer 494 P.2d 730 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Furthermore, in determining what amount should be awarded as alimony the trial court has broad discretion, , and where there is reasonable evidence to support the judgment of the trial court, we will not disturb it.
Nace v. Nace 489 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1971
Nace v. Nace 489 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1971
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
Johnson v. Johnson 469 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Johnson v. Johnson 469 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
and Porreca v. Porreca, supra.
McClennen v. McClennen 464 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
McClennen v. McClennen 464 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Armer v. Armer 463 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1970
Armer v. Armer 463 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1970
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
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