DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

75 citing documents.

  • Finck v. Finck 452 P.2d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Finck v. Finck 452 P.2d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    While an appellate court has jurisdiction in this state to reapportion without new trial, , , the appellate court may also direct a new trial on this issue.
  • Nace v. Nace 448 P.2d 76 Ariz. 1968
  • Nace v. Nace 448 P.2d 76 Ariz. 1968
    Porter v. Porter, supra; , ; , .
  • Porreca v. Porreca 446 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • Porreca v. Porreca 446 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    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.
  • Nace v. Nace 432 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • Nace v. Nace 432 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    ent” manner, (2) that for “reason requiring a contrary action” the court may make an unequal division, and (3) that the trial court’s broad discretionary power in determining what is “just and right” in the division of community property will not be disturbed on appeal unless such discretion has been “abused.” , , , Schwartz v. Durham.
  • Arizona Central Credit Union v. Holden 432 P.2d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Arizona Central Credit Union v. Holden 432 P.2d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Patterson v. Patterson 432 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1967
  • Patterson v. Patterson 432 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1967
    Pencovic v. Pencovic, 45 Cal.2d 97 , and see 24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation §§ 839-840.
  • Norton v. Norton 420 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1966
  • Norton v. Norton 420 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1966
    we said: “ * * * The factors to be considered include the needs of the wife and her ability to support herself, , the ability of the husband to pay, , 274 P. 638 (1929) ; and the other circumstances of the parties
  • DeMarce v. DeMarce 419 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1966
  • DeMarce v. DeMarce 419 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1966
  • Porter v. Porter 416 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1966
  • Porter v. Porter 416 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1966
  • Smith v. Tang 412 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1966
  • Smith v. Tang 412 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1966
    § 12-2103; , ; , ; , , 29 A.L.R.2d 518 .
  • Warren v. Warren 407 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • Warren v. Warren 407 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • Britz v. Britz 389 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1964
  • Britz v. Britz 389 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1964
  • Campbell v. Deddens 379 P.2d 963 Ariz. 1963
    Wine Glass Ranches, , , filed objections to this motion and moved to dismiss the action under Rule V (d).