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.

  • Ruppel v. Ruppel 447 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1968
  • Ruppel v. Ruppel 447 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1968
    Annot., 89 A.L.R.2d 7 , at p. 42 , , we held: “* * * The change of circumstances rule as a limitation on modification of a divorce decree is one aspect of the principle of res judicata.
  • Dunbar v. Dunbar 429 P.2d 949 Ariz. 1967
  • Dunbar v. Dunbar 429 P.2d 949 Ariz. 1967
    this Court interpreted A.R.S.
  • 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
    No appeal having been taken, this decision became final, upon the facts then before the court, and no alteration will be made without a showing that the factual situation has changed to such an extent that the original decree can no longer reasonably be expected to serve the purpose.” 135
  • 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
  • Hutchison v. Hutchison 416 P.2d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • Hutchison v. Hutchison 416 P.2d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • 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
    modified , in support of the proposition that a change in the circumstances of the parents alone is not sufficient to justify a change in visitation or custody provisions.
  • 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
  • Rodgers v. De Arman 406 P.2d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • Rodgers v. De Arman 406 P.2d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
    “The change of circumstances rule as a limitation on modification of a divorce decree is one aspect of the principle of res judicata.” -135
  • Bergman v. Bergman 401 P.2d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • Bergman v. Bergman 401 P.2d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • In Re Clay, IV 393 P.2d 257 Ariz. 1964
  • In Re Clay, IV 393 P.2d 257 Ariz. 1964
    As to the third assignment of error concerning the trial court’s determination that the father should have the custody *165 of the children, it has been stated by this court on many occasions that the trial court’s judgment as to the best interest of a child cannot be set aside unless it clearly appears that the court abused its discretion, , .
  • Ward v. Ward 371 P.2d 1022 Ariz. 1962
  • Ward v. Ward 371 P.2d 1022 Ariz. 1962
    state is as follows: the parties were divorced in 1955, and in an uncontested action, Mrs. Ward was given full custody of the minor boy; Mr. Ward’s petition to modify the judgment so as to obtain custody for the three summer months was heard and denied by the trial court in 1957, on the ground there was no change of circumstances; Mr. Ward appealed to this court, , rehearing, , this court reversed the lower court and sent the case back for trial with directions to try the specific issue of wheth
  • Smith v. Smith 367 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1961
  • Smith v. Smith 367 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1961
  • Henning v. Henning 362 P.2d 124 Ariz. 1961
  • Henning v. Henning 362 P.2d 124 Ariz. 1961
  • Galbraith v. Galbraith 356 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1960
  • Galbraith v. Galbraith 356 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1960
    *362 , ; , ; , ; , ; , .