DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Stone v. Stidham, 393 P.2d 923.

34 citing documents.

  • In Re the Marriage of Duvall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
  • In Re the Marriage of Duvall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
    The judicial power of contempt is inherent, but no court may use that power to enforce the unenforceable, -40 (1964).
  • Eans-Snoderly v. Snoderly 473 P.3d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Eans-Snoderly v. Snoderly 473 P.3d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Hatfield v. hatfield/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Hatfield v. hatfield/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    It is well-settled that the obligation to pay child support is not regarded under the law as a “debt,” but it constitutes a moral obligation “resting upon a sound public policy” and a parent who fails to pay child support may “be imprisoned unless [the parent] can purge [] the contempt by paying or by showing that he has neither the estate nor the ability to pay.”
  • Tande v. Bongiovanni 688 P.2d 1012 Ariz. 1984
  • Tande v. Bongiovanni 688 P.2d 1012 Ariz. 1984
  • Helber v. Frazelle 575 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Helber v. Frazelle 575 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • 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
  • Masta v. Lurie ex rel. Superior Court 525 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Masta v. Lurie ex rel. Superior Court 525 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Johnson v. Johnson 523 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Johnson v. Johnson 523 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • State Ex Rel. Cordova v. Cordova 520 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State Ex Rel. Cordova v. Cordova 520 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • Ruhsam v. Ruhsam 518 P.2d 576 Ariz. 1974
  • Ruhsam v. Ruhsam 518 P.2d 576 Ariz. 1974
  • Frese v. Superior Court 474 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Frese v. Superior Court 474 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    Mrs. Frese, through her counsel, candidly admits that the trial court lacked authority to hold Mr. Frese in contempt for failure to pay the community debts of the parties because of the constitutional prohibí
  • Cocke v. Cocke 474 P.2d 64 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Cocke v. Cocke 474 P.2d 64 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    This right is questioned on the basis that the “alimony” payments required by the original decree of divorce was a contractual obligation arising out of a division of the property of the parties and therefore was not subject to enforcement by contempt proceedings
  • Proffit v. Proffit 462 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1969
  • Proffit v. Proffit 462 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1969
    a divorce decree embodied the terms of a property settlement agreement directing husband to pay wife a sum *225 of $125.00 per month for ten years.
  • Rodieck v. Rodieck 450 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Rodieck v. Rodieck 450 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    Lovegrove v. Lovegrove, 128 Va.
  • 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
  • Norton v. Norton 420 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1966
  • Norton v. Norton 420 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1966
    § 25-321 permits such modification of a decree providing for the support and maintenance of a wife "as may be just.” , , this court stated: “The term ‘alimony’ does not contemplate a settlement of property interest or general endowment of wealth.
  • Perkins v. Superior Court 412 P.2d 476 Ariz. 1966
  • Perkins v. Superior Court 412 P.2d 476 Ariz. 1966
    At issue here is whether the payment of the then existing community obligations was the payment by petitioner of a debt, for neither party challenges the principle that imprisonment for a debt is contrary to the Arizona Constitution, Article 2, section 18, A.R.S., while imprisonment for failure to make support payments to a former wife as ordered in a divorce decree is proper, , .