Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Norton v. Norton, 420 P.2d 578.

38 citing documents.

Solberg v. Solberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Solberg v. Solberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Boyle v. Boyle 290 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Overruled Boyle v. Boyle 290 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
The decisions that Husband cites to support his position, , , , rely on the pre-1987 statute and are thus no longer good law to the extent they hold otherwise.
Cooper v. Cooper 808 P.2d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Cooper v. Cooper 808 P.2d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Reed v. Reed 740 P.2d 963 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Reed v. Reed 740 P.2d 963 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Ruskin v. Ruskin 738 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Ruskin v. Ruskin 738 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Buttram v. Buttram 596 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Buttram v. Buttram 596 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Scott v. Scott 591 P.2d 980 Ariz. 1979
Scott v. Scott 591 P.2d 980 Ariz. 1979
Lindsay v. Lindsay 565 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Lindsay v. Lindsay 565 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
” Porreca v. Porreca, 8 Ariz. App. at 397 , 446 P.2d at 503 .
Hornbaker v. Hornbaker 545 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Hornbaker v. Hornbaker 545 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Hamann v. Hamann 511 P.2d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Hamann v. Hamann 511 P.2d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Davis v. Davis, 9 Ariz.App.
Linton v. Linton 499 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Linton v. Linton 499 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Norton v. Norton, supra [ , ].
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
and defendant must show a clear abuse of discretion before this Court will interfere.
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
Shaffer v. Shaffer 494 P.2d 730 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Shaffer v. Shaffer 494 P.2d 730 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
where the court stated: “.
Nace v. Nace 489 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1971
Nace v. Nace 489 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1971
Clark, Law of Domestic Relations (1968), at 441, 444.
Sheeley v. Sheeley 458 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Sheeley v. Sheeley 458 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
has treated exhaustively the law in Arizona and elsewhere as to what must be taken into consideration in modifying a decree of divorce insofar as the same concerns alimony.
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.
Ruppel v. Ruppel 447 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1968
Ruppel v. Ruppel 447 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1968
Porreca v. Porreca 446 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Porreca v. Porreca 446 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968