Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Milam v. Milam, 419 P.2d 502.

68 citing documents.

Torres v. Jai Dining Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Torres v. Jai Dining Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
of Supervisors of Pima Cnty., ); (“Because a trial court and opposing counsel should be afforded the opportunity to correct any asserted defects before error may be raised on appeal, absent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appe
Pettit v. Pettit 189 P.3d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Pettit v. Pettit 189 P.3d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
oted by our supreme court in Milam v. Milam, a separate paternity suit is not necessary when, as here, “paternity is admitted by the natural parents in a divorce action, for there appears no legitimate grounds in public policy or otherwise why the admissions of paternity in a divorce action should not give the court jurisdiction to award support under [the statutory predecessor to § 25-320(A) ].”
Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 724 P.2d 562 Ariz. 1986
Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 724 P.2d 562 Ariz. 1986
Bahman v. Estes Homes 710 P.2d 1087 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Bahman v. Estes Homes 710 P.2d 1087 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 709 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 709 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Golleher v. Horton 715 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Golleher v. Horton 715 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Jaeger v. Petroni 650 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Jaeger v. Petroni 650 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
The purpose of the rule is to prevent the trial court from committing error in the instructions
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action Nos. A-23498 & JS-2201 584 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action Nos. A-23498 & JS-2201 584 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Cheatham v. Sahuaro Collection Service, Inc. 577 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Cheatham v. Sahuaro Collection Service, Inc. 577 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Bible v. First National Bank of Rawlins, 21 Ariz.App.
Rodriguez v. Besser Co. 565 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Rodriguez v. Besser Co. 565 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Hubbs v. Costello, 22 Ariz.App.
Ballard v. Lawyers Title of Arizona 552 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Ballard v. Lawyers Title of Arizona 552 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Leahy v. Ryan, 20 Ariz.App.
United States (Treasury Dept., IRS) v. Globe Corp. 546 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1976
United States (Treasury Dept., IRS) v. Globe Corp. 546 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1976
Herzberg v. State Ex Rel. Humphrey 513 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Herzberg v. State Ex Rel. Humphrey 513 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Hunter Contracting Co. v. Sanner Contracting Co. 492 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hunter Contracting Co. v. Sanner Contracting Co. 492 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Gangadean v. Byrne 491 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Gangadean v. Byrne 491 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Vinnell Corp. v. State ex rel. Skousen 490 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Vinnell Corp. v. State ex rel. Skousen 490 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Payne v. Payne, 12 Ariz.App.
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Valley National Bank 485 P.2d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Valley National Bank 485 P.2d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Kenyon v. Kenyon, 5 Ariz.App.
Graham v. Shooke 482 P.2d 446 Ariz. 1971
Graham v. Shooke 482 P.2d 446 Ariz. 1971
Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 471 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 471 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 466 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1970
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 466 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1970
Evans v. Lundgren 465 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Evans v. Lundgren 465 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Pitzen's Wig Villa v. Pruitt 464 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Pitzen's Wig Villa v. Pruitt 464 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Rexing v. Rexing 464 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Rexing v. Rexing 464 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Kenyon v. Kenyon, 5 Ariz.App.
Edwards v. Van Voorhis 463 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Edwards v. Van Voorhis 463 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
The answers shall be only advisory to the court.” While the literal language of the rule seems to indicate that the submission of interrogatories is permissive rather than mandatory ( , ), the Supreme Court of Arizona has held that it is error for a trial court sitting in an equitable action to refuse to submit a requested interrogatory concerning a controverted question of fact to the advisory jury.
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 458 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 458 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969