Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Barnett v. Barnett, 388 P.2d 433.

26 citing documents.

Lindsay v. Lindsay 565 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Lindsay v. Lindsay 565 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
921 (1940)); , Lloyd v. Lloyd, 23 Ariz.App.
Fye v. Zigoures 562 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Fye v. Zigoures 562 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Bennett v. Bennett, 17 Ariz.App.
Lloyd v. Lloyd 553 P.2d 684 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Lloyd v. Lloyd 553 P.2d 684 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Spector v. Spector 531 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Spector v. Spector 531 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hofstra v. Mahoney 502 P.2d 1317 Ariz. 1972
Hofstra v. Mahoney 502 P.2d 1317 Ariz. 1972
we said: “When an issue develops after final judgment by reason of A.R.S.
Bennett v. Bennett 495 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Bennett v. Bennett 495 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Davis v. Davis 449 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Davis v. Davis 449 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Atkinson v. Atkinson, 2 Ariz.App.
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
Our court has said that an alimony award will be a lump sum in case it is “ * * * an unqualified allowance in gross * * * ”, and it is such a “ * * * definite and final adjustment of mutual rights and obligations as to be capable of a present vesting and to constitute an absolute judgment * *
Heller v. Heller 438 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Heller v. Heller 438 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Earley v. Earley 430 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Earley v. Earley 430 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
We are unable to agree with the husband that the payments for support of the wife are in gross or a
Norton v. Norton 420 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1966
Norton v. Norton 420 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1966
Bartholomew v. Superior Court 417 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Bartholomew v. Superior Court 417 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
the Supreme Court declined to overrule the Cummings case stating that “[wjhere a lump sum payment is awarded, it constitutes an absolute judgment and cannot be subsequently modified.” 95 Ariz. at 228 , 388 P.2d at 435 .
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