Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite DeMarce v. DeMarce, 419 P.2d 726.

46 citing documents.

Danko v. Danko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Danko v. Danko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(noting "the court has jurisdiction to determine what property is community property").
In Re the Marriage of Furimsky 595 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1979
In Re the Marriage of Furimsky 595 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1979
Kelly v. Kelly 540 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Kelly v. Kelly 540 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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
Davis v. Davis, 9 Ariz.App.
Oppenheimer v. Oppenheimer 526 P.2d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Oppenheimer v. Oppenheimer 526 P.2d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
our Supreme Court was faced with the question of whether the 1962 amendment applied to a division of property acquired before its enactment.
Day v. Day 513 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Day v. Day 513 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Burkhardt v. Burkhardt 510 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1973
Burkhardt v. Burkhardt 510 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1973
Kennedy v. Kennedy, supra
Becchelli v. Becchelli 508 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1973
Becchelli v. Becchelli 508 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1973
Davis v. Davis 499 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Davis v. Davis 499 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
She states in her brief: “There is no question in anybody’s mind that the Plaintiff, who is a millionaire, can afford to pay any sum of money that is necessary for future support and maintenance of the Defendant.” The question of alimony, of course, is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, , and where there is any reasonable evidence to support its determination relative thereto, we will not interfere.
O'Hair v. O'Hair 494 P.2d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
O'Hair v. O'Hair 494 P.2d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Becchelli v. Becchelli 497 P.2d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Becchelli v. Becchelli 497 P.2d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
O'Connor v. O'Connor 494 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
O'Connor v. O'Connor 494 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Drees v. Drees 490 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Drees v. Drees 490 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Huerta v. Huerta 487 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Followed Huerta v. Huerta 487 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Bergman v. Bergman, 1 Ariz.App.
Reich v. Reich 474 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Reich v. Reich 474 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
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
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
Gage v. Gage 462 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Gage v. Gage 462 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Calderon v. Calderon 454 P.2d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Calderon v. Calderon 454 P.2d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
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
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
The question of alimony is left to the sound discretion of the trial court
Nace v. Nace 432 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Nace v. Nace 432 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
O'Leary v. O'Leary 431 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
O'Leary v. O'Leary 431 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
A, as amended; , , , , and precludes legitimate complaint from the defendant.