DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Simpson v. Superior Court, 351 P.2d 179.

42 citing documents.

  • In Re the Marriage of Rojas 530 P.3d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
  • In Re the Marriage of Rojas 530 P.3d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
    at 248-49; (MSA clearly not intended to merge when it said it “shall not be merged in any decree or 3Although most of our case law involves MSAs that are either fully merged or fully excepted, nothing in the language of § 25-317 mandates an all-in or all-out approach for each provision of an MSA.
  • Schott v. Schott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Schott v. Schott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶8 Furthermore, our supreme court has held “the parol evidence rule, a rule of substantive contract law, does not apply to a judgment.” ¶ 15 (1999); (“[W]here a court has the general power to modify a decree for alimony or support, the exercise of that power is not affected by the fact that the decree is based on an agreement entered into by the parties to the action.”) (internal quotation and citations omitted).
  • Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    (parties neither can confer nor restrict superior court’s jurisdiction); cf. Arizona Downs v. Turf Paradise, Inc, (parties may not, by contract, deprive regulatory body of its authority to regulate matters within its jurisdiction).
  • COHEN v. FREY, Fka COHEN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • COHEN v. FREY, Fka COHEN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    Because the parties in McCready could not agree on how to dispose of the house and it had been acquired after dissolution, the only remedy available was 4 Frey also complains that the trial court’s P.2d 179 (1960), demonstrates it “applied the wrong law.” But the trial court appropriately cited Simpson to support the point that property settlement agreements, once merged into a decree, are not subject to later modification by the trial court.
  • Marriage of LaPrade v. LaPrade 941 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1997
  • Marriage of LaPrade v. LaPrade 941 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1997
  • Appels-Meehan v. Appels 805 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • Distinguished Appels-Meehan v. Appels 805 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
    is hereby ratified, approved and confirmed, and by reference made a part of this decree” establishes non-merger, citing Marshick, supra
  • Dooley v. Dooley 708 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Dooley v. Dooley 708 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Nordensson v. Nordensson 707 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • Nordensson v. Nordensson 707 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    For an example of a sufficiently definite trial court order in a domestic relations case, , , 427 (App. 1983), in which the trial record clearly stated that the motion for new trial was granted “in application of the test set forth in Simpson v. Superior Court, supra [ , ].” When the trial court does not specify with particularity, as here, , may apply, i.e., the burden of proof shifts to appellee, on appeal, to prove that the trial court did not err in ordering a new trial.
  • Young v. Burkholder 690 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Young v. Burkholder 690 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
    *421 P.2d 179 (1960), the Arizona Supreme Court made it clear that the superior court, which has statutory power to modify support and custody provisions and enforce such provisions incorporated in a decree, is not deprived of this power even where the agreement survives the decree rather than being merged in it.
  • Keller v. Keller 671 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Keller v. Keller 671 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Matter of Gubser 614 P.2d 845 Ariz. 1980
  • Matter of Gubser 614 P.2d 845 Ariz. 1980
    a husband and wife entered into a property settlement agreement which was made a part of a divorce decree.
  • States v. States 603 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1979
  • States v. States 603 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1979
    and there set forth the criteria for deciding whether the payments were intended to be solely maintenance or consideration for the property settlement: 1) The provisions of the agreement.
  • Helber v. Frazelle 575 P.2d 1243 Ariz. 1978
  • Helber v. Frazelle 575 P.2d 1243 Ariz. 1978
  • Helber v. Frazelle 575 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Helber v. Frazelle 575 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Marshick v. Marshick 545 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • Marshick v. Marshick 545 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • Lincoln v. Lincoln 539 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Lincoln v. Lincoln 539 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    Gillespie v. Gillespie, supra.
  • Randolph v. Howard 491 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • Randolph v. Howard 491 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
    Badertscher v. Badertscher, 10 Ariz.App.
  • Wick v. Wick 481 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Wick v. Wick 481 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Atkinson v. Atkinson 405 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • Atkinson v. Atkinson 405 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • Stone v. Stidham 393 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1964
  • Stone v. Stidham 393 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1964
  • Wright v. Stidham 390 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1964
  • Wright v. Stidham 390 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1964