Cited by

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

66 citing documents.

Wackerman v. Wackerman 493 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Wackerman v. Wackerman 493 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
our Supreme Court stated that the welfare of the child controls as against the wishes of the parents.
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
Stapley v. Stapley 485 P.2d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Stapley v. Stapley 485 P.2d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Borg v. Borg, 3 Ariz.App.
Wick v. Wick 481 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Wick v. Wick 481 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
: “It 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.” (Citation omitted).
Johnson v. Johnson 479 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Johnson v. Johnson 479 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
McGrath v. Bill Johnston Golf Properties, Inc. 474 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
McGrath v. Bill Johnston Golf Properties, Inc. 474 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
The Arizona Supreme Court has stated: “It 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.”
In Re Estate of Cohen 464 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1970
In Re Estate of Cohen 464 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1970
this Court adopted the Restatement definition of duress.
Earley v. Earley 458 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Earley v. Earley 458 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969