DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Spector v. Spector, 382 P.2d 659.

76 citing documents.

  • Nicaise v. ades/sundaram Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Nicaise v. ades/sundaram Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    See McMurray v. Dream Catcher USA, Inc., ¶ 6 (App. 2009) ("In the absence of express findings, we may deem any necessary findings implied in the judgment."); ("This Court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the decree.").
  • Stevenson v. Stevenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Stevenson v. Stevenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Lund v. Lund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Lund v. Lund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    § 25-318(E)(1); Martin, 156 Ariz. at 457; 186 (1963) (affirming, as modified, the family court’s order awarding community property to husband and imposing a lien in favor of wife where the forced sale of non-liquid assets would realize less than their actual value).
  • Koelsch v. Koelsch 713 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1986
  • Koelsch v. Koelsch 713 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1986
    we approved a community property disposition in which the husband was awarded title to the community property business and was ordered to pay the wife her interest in five annual installments.
  • Biddulph v. Biddulph 711 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Biddulph v. Biddulph 711 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Luna v. Luna 608 P.2d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Luna v. Luna 608 P.2d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Mori v. Mori 603 P.2d 85 Ariz. 1979
  • Mori v. Mori 603 P.2d 85 Ariz. 1979
  • McCune v. McCune 586 P.2d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • McCune v. McCune 586 P.2d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    Nace v. Nace, [ , ] supra; Spector v. Spector, [ , ] supra; Calderon v. Calderon, 9 Ariz.App.
  • Murphy v. Murphy 547 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Murphy v. Murphy 547 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    and Hayne v. Hayne, 9 Ariz.App.
  • Nesmith v. Nesmith 540 P.2d 1229 Ariz. 1975
  • Nesmith v. Nesmith 540 P.2d 1229 Ariz. 1975
    Viewing the evidence and all inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to the prevailing party, , the facts essential for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows.
  • 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
    authorities cited, Annot.; 61 A.L.R.3rd 520 at 575.
  • 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
    In the absence of such an agreement, there would, as pointed out by Greenberg, be a duty on the part of a husband to account to the wife for the expenditure of community funds, , and to reimburse her for her share used to improve his separate property, Lawson v. Ridgeway, supra.
  • Gilbert v. McGhee 524 P.2d 157 Ariz. 1974
  • Gilbert v. McGhee 524 P.2d 157 Ariz. 1974
    See, e. g., , 382 P.2d *124 659 (1963)
  • Nace v. Nace 489 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1971
  • Nace v. Nace 489 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Gilreath 487 P.2d 385 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Gilreath 487 P.2d 385 Ariz. 1971
    Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure 43(g), 16 A.R.S.; at 184 , ; at 360 , ; at 58 , ; Udall on Evidence, § 45.
  • Wilson v. Polacek 486 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Wilson v. Polacek 486 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    While our own statute might appear susceptible to a similar construction
  • Srock v. Srock 466 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • Srock v. Srock 466 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • McClennen v. McClennen 464 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • McClennen v. McClennen 464 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • 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.
  • State v. Taylor 451 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Taylor 451 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    Our Supreme Court has said: “On cross-examination a party should be permitted to ask any question which bears upon the credibility of the witness and sheds light upon the issues of the case.”
  • Hayne v. Hayne 449 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Hayne v. Hayne 449 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Wayman 449 P.2d 296 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Wayman 449 P.2d 296 Ariz. 1969
  • Staley v. Estate of Harber 449 P.2d 7 Ariz. 1969
  • Staley v. Estate of Harber 449 P.2d 7 Ariz. 1969
    The relationship between husband and wife is a confidential one, and the husband is in a position “analogous to that of a trustee.”
  • Nace v. Nace 448 P.2d 76 Ariz. 1968
  • Nace v. Nace 448 P.2d 76 Ariz. 1968
  • Gaethje v. Gaethje 441 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • Gaethje v. Gaethje 441 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    Our law in regard to gifts made by either spouse during the existence of the marriage may be different than that of Texas, , and see Thurman, Federal Estate and Gift Taxation of Community Property, 1 Ariz. L.Rev.