Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Dunbar v. Dunbar, 429 P.2d 949.

66 citing documents.

Ortega v. Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Ortega v. Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 18 (App. 2022) (we do not require courts to order maximal or near-equal parenting time, only that the parenting plan is in the child’s best interests); (“[Parents’] happiness and their desires will never be allowed to interfere with the child’s true welfare.”).
Mayfield v. Mayfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Mayfield v. Mayfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
–56 (1967); Inter-Tel, Inc. v. Bank of Am., Ariz., ¶¶ 35–36 (App. 1999); see also Restatement (First) of Contracts (“First Restatement”) § 492(b) (1932) (assent induced by wrongful threat that causes “such fear as precludes [another] from exercising free will and judgment”); Restatement (Second
Mesa v. O'Connor 563 P.3d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Mesa v. O'Connor 563 P.3d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
§ 25-103(B) (It is the public policy of Arizona that “it is in a child’s best interest” to have “substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing parenting time with both parents.”) (emphasis added); (“The final determination of custody in a divorce action is and must be determined by what the court considers to be in the best interest of the child.
Elliston v. Elliston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Elliston v. Elliston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
–56 (1967); Inter-Tel, ¶¶ 35–36 (App. 1999); see also Restatement (First) of Contracts (“First Restatement”) § 492(b) (1932) (assent induced by wrongful threat that causes “such fear as precludes [another] from exercising free will and judgment”); Restatement (Second) of Co
Marceaux v. Tiffany & Bosco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Marceaux v. Tiffany & Bosco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Davis v. Landon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Davis v. Landon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“The final determination of custody in a divorce action is and must be determined by what the court considers to be in the best interest of the child.
Coburn v. Rhodig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Coburn v. Rhodig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Barron v. Barron 443 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Barron v. Barron 443 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(applying "tender years" statute as "the declared policy of this state").
Robles v. Palencia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Robles v. Palencia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Joel M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Joel M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Mark T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mark T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Suzanne S. v. Dcs, F.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Suzanne S. v. Dcs, F.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Peoria 44 v. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Peoria 44 v. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–56, –53 (1967) (noting that the “test of what act or threat constitutes duress is determined by considering whether the threat placed the party entering into the transaction in such fear as to preclude the exercise by him of free will and judgment”).
Sharp v. Sharp 877 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Sharp v. Sharp 877 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
The court said: The test of what act or threat constitutes duress is determined by considering whether the threat placed the party entering into the transaction in such fear as to preclude the exercise by him of free will and judgment____ By definition, an act or threat to constitute duress must be “wrongful.” Id at 565, 672 P.2d at 494, -56 , -53 (1967).
USLife Title Co. of Arizona v. Gutkin 732 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
USLife Title Co. of Arizona v. Gutkin 732 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Field v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 669 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Field v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 669 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Hendricks v. Simper, 24 Ariz.App.
Rubenstein v. Sela 672 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Rubenstein v. Sela 672 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
the court upheld a reconciliation agreement between a husband and wife wherein all the property of the parties was agreed to be community property and the parties agreed to resume marital relations.
Republic National Life Insurance v. Rudine 668 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Republic National Life Insurance v. Rudine 668 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Johnson v. American National Insurance 613 P.2d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Johnson v. American National Insurance 613 P.2d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
For other cases holding there must be a wrongful act or threat
Pleasants v. Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 569 P.2d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Pleasants v. Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 569 P.2d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Porter v. Porter 518 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Porter v. Porter 518 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Olsztyn v. Olsztyn 514 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Olsztyn v. Olsztyn 514 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Dunbar v. Dunbar 510 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1973
Dunbar v. Dunbar 510 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1973
The present appeal is a continuation of an appeal, Cause No. 8456, decided July 7, 1967, , .
Orezza v. Ramirez 507 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Orezza v. Ramirez 507 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Vinnell Corp. v. State Ex Rel. Bob Skousen Contr., Inc. 505 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1973
Vinnell Corp. v. State Ex Rel. Bob Skousen Contr., Inc. 505 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1973
But we have previously held that “[i]t is not duress to declare an intention to resort to the courts for the purpose of insisting on what one believes are one’s legal rights.”