Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Fought v. Fought, 382 P.2d 667.

91 citing documents.

Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
5 ATKINSON v. MCINDOO Decision of the Court ¶16 The Arizona court abuses its discretion in making a factual determination where the record is “devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.” ( ).
Rustica D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rustica D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
An abuse of discretion occurs when the record is “devoid of competent evidence to support the decision of the [juvenile] court.”
Dominguez v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Dominguez v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
An abuse of discretion occurs when the record is “devoid of competent evidence to support the decision of the [family] court.”
Robert S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Robert S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
An abuse of discretion occurs when the record is “devoid of competent evidence to support the decision of the trial court.”
Jenkins v. Jenkins 156 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Jenkins v. Jenkins 156 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
( , ); see Roberts v. Malott, *38 , (hold-ing that “a judgment "will not be disturbed when there is any reasonable evidence to support it”).
State v. Green 29 P.3d 271 Ariz. 2001
Marriage of Little v. Little 975 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1999
Marriage of Little v. Little 975 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1999
Little v. Little 969 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Little v. Little 969 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
In Re the Marriage of Pacific 815 P.2d 7 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
In Re the Marriage of Pacific 815 P.2d 7 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
a pre-section 25-215(B) case cited by Mother, does not contradict this view.
Sandblom v. Corbin 608 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Sandblom v. Corbin 608 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Guirey, Srnka & Arnold
Costanzo v. Stewart Title & Trust of Phoenix 533 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Costanzo v. Stewart Title & Trust of Phoenix 533 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Platt v. Platt 498 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Platt v. Platt 498 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
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
Nace v. Nace 489 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1971
Nace v. Nace 489 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1971
Transamerica Development Co. v. County of Maricopa 489 P.2d 33 Ariz. 1971
Transamerica Development Co. v. County of Maricopa 489 P.2d 33 Ariz. 1971
Larsen v. Larsen 466 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Larsen v. Larsen 466 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Visco v. Universal Refuse Removal Company 462 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Visco v. Universal Refuse Removal Company 462 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Sheeley v. Sheeley 458 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
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
The Borg case, supra, at page 277, 413 P.2d at page 787, , provides the test for the exercise of judicial discretion: “To determine that there has been an abuse of discretion, as appellant claims, the record must be devoid of competent evidence to support the decision of the trial court.
Sheeley v. Sheeley 458 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Reardon v. Reardon 415 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Reardon v. Reardon 415 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Further, in testing the sufficiency of the evidence it must be taken in the strongest manner in favor of the appellee and in support of the court’s findings, and a judgment will not be disturbed when there is any reasonable evidence to support it.”
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
involving the issue of reduction of child support payments: “To determine that there has been an abuse of discretion, as appellant claims, the record must be devoid of competent evidence to support the decision of the trial court.