DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Patterson v. Patterson, 432 P.2d 143.

40 citing documents.

  • Purdy v. Purdy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Purdy v. Purdy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    (refusing to reduce child support because the father was able to work and his obligation to his children “[could not] be diminished because he preferred to be idle rather than industrious or [that] .
  • Peralta v. Peralta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Peralta v. Peralta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    (refusing to reduce child support because the father was capable of working and his obligation to his children could not be diminished because he preferred to be idle rather than industrious or his own improprieties caused a diminution in his income).
  • State v. McEvoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. McEvoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    See, –15 (1967) (failure to appeal support order deprived the appellate court of jurisdiction).
  • Grubb v. Thraikill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Grubb v. Thraikill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (comparing the language of consecutive trial court orders to determine if they were complementary or whether the latter superseded the former).
  • Rivera v. Drake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Rivera v. Drake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (voluntary diminution of income does not lessen obligation to children); see also Little, 193 Ariz. at 522, ¶ 13 (a voluntary decision to leave employment is less reasonable when the parent is capable of finding a suitable job).
  • Pullen v. Pullen 222 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Pullen v. Pullen 222 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Marriage of Little v. Little 975 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1999
  • Marriage of Little v. Little 975 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1999
    (refusing to reduce a father’s child support award on the grounds that “no showing was made that he lacked the ability or capacity to work” and because a father’s obligation to his children “cannot be diminished because he preferred to be idle rather than industrious or [that] ...
  • State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Dodd 888 P.2d 1370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Dodd 888 P.2d 1370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    Baures v. Baures, 13 Ariz.App.
  • 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
  • Reeves v. Reeves 706 P.2d 1238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • Reeves v. Reeves 706 P.2d 1238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • Chaney v. Chaney 699 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Chaney v. Chaney 699 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    Therefore, , furnishes no authority for the trial court’s finding in this case.
  • Marriage of Deatherage v. Deatherage 681 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Marriage of Deatherage v. Deatherage 681 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
    (husband not entitled to reduced support and maintenance payments despite lower income where court determines he had a greater income capacity).
  • Fletcher v. Fletcher 671 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Fletcher v. Fletcher 671 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    the reduction in the husband's income was found by the court to be the result of his choosing not to work as industriously at his medical practice.
  • Todd v. Todd 670 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Todd v. Todd 670 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    Since the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a prerequisite to the exercise of this court’s appellate jurisdiction, , we lack jurisdiction in 1 CA-CIV 6326, and the appeal must be dismissed.
  • Jorgensen v. Jorgensen 640 P.2d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • Jorgensen v. Jorgensen 640 P.2d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
    § 12-2451C; , (former spouse obligated to pay alimony may not avoid that duty by voluntary conduct reducing ability to pay).
  • Cordova v. Lucero 629 P.2d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • Cordova v. Lucero 629 P.2d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    While the Arizona law is clear that the parties cannot modify a judgment for court ordered child support payments, , the Arizona Supreme Court ruled, under the particular facts of that case, that laches would not bar the wife, the custodial parent, from collecting child support arrearages.
  • Corbett v. Corbett 569 P.2d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Corbett v. Corbett 569 P.2d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    While laches may constitute a defense to a claim for accrued but unpaid alimony and child support obligations, , , the defense is unavailable “absent a showing of abandon *353 ment by appellant [in this case petitioner] of her claim or prejudice to the appellee.” Baures v. Baures, supra at 520, 478 P.2d at 135 .
  • Edwards v. Young 486 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1971
  • Edwards v. Young 486 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1971
    at 415 , ; at 307 , ; Harbel Oil Co. v. Steele, supra, 80 Ariz. at 370 , ; In re Gipson’s Estate, at 183 , ; , .
  • Baures v. Baures 478 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Baures v. Baures 478 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Pitzen's Wig Villa v. Pruitt 464 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Pitzen's Wig Villa v. Pruitt 464 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    331 , , 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, sec.