DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ward v. Ward, 353 P.2d 895.

78 citing documents.

  • Dapra v. Robertson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Dapra v. Robertson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    -36 (1960) (considering a child’s increased age, in combination with other factors, to determine whether changed circumstances existed).
  • Bosch v. Bosch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Bosch v. Bosch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    -35 (1960) (“The change of circumstances rule as a limitation on modification of a divorce decree is one aspect of the principle of res judicata.”).
  • Webster v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Webster v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Cook, 228 Ariz. at 205, ¶ 11.
  • Shaw v. Bergeron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Shaw v. Bergeron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Pridgeon, 134 Ariz. at 179
  • Turfler v. Torrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Turfler v. Torrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    parent whose parental rights have not been terminated”); (finding parent is presumed to be fit if no adjudication of unfitness).
  • Olesen v. daniel/burge 484 P.3d 139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Olesen v. daniel/burge 484 P.3d 139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Backstrand v. Backstrand 479 P.3d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Backstrand v. Backstrand 479 P.3d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    See, e.g., Black, 114 Ariz. at 284 (change of circumstances included that petitioning parent had remarried); –36 (1960) (change of circumstances included age of the child, child’s desire to visit the other parent more frequently, and increased distance between the child and noncustodial parent); –49 (App. 1994) (change of circumstances was that joint custody became “logistically impossib
  • Quinton v. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Quinton v. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Lisa Friedman v. David C Roels Jr 418 P.3d 884 Ariz. 2018
  • Lisa Friedman v. David C Roels Jr 418 P.3d 884 Ariz. 2018
    fitness,” a person “is presumed to be a fit [parent].” cf. Santosky, 455 U.S. at 760 (“[U]ntil the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship.”).
  • Wild v. Wild Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Wild v. Wild Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • J.A.R. v. Superior Court 877 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • J.A.R. v. Superior Court 877 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    modified on other grounds, , see also Bailey v. Bailey, 3 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Kracker 599 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Kracker 599 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • Anderson v. Anderson 590 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • Anderson v. Anderson 590 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • Morales v. Glenn 560 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1977
  • Morales v. Glenn 560 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1977
    ” We have read the case of Ward v. Ward, supra, and find no such ruling.
  • Georgia v. Georgia 553 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Georgia v. Georgia 553 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • 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
    The trial court is given broad discretion in determining what will be the most beneficial for the children, , and it is in the best position to determine what is in the children’s interest.
  • 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
    The evidence in this case demonstrates that such can be best served by placing legal custody of the children with the defendant with the full right of reasonable visitation with the plaintiff.” This statement is a , cited as authority by both parties.
  • 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
  • Orezza v. Ramirez 507 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Orezza v. Ramirez 507 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    Stapley v. Stapley, 15 Ariz.App.
  • Hofstra v. Mahoney 499 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Hofstra v. Mahoney 499 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • 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
    modified in another respect, , .(1960).
  • Anderson v. Anderson 481 P.2d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Anderson v. Anderson 481 P.2d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    enunciated that the change of circumstances rule in these cases is an aspect of the principle of res adjudicata.
  • 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
    and cases cited therein.
  • 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