Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Genda v. Superior Court, County of Pima, 439 P.2d 811.

66 citing documents.

Nunez v. Valente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
McMichael-gombar v. Phoenix Civil Service Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
McMichael-gombar v. Phoenix Civil Service Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
McFarlane v. McFarlane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
McFarlane v. McFarlane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Dipasquale v. Dipasquale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Dipasquale v. Dipasquale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
is generally predicated upon the equitable power of the family court ‘to do full and complete justice between the parties.’” ¶ 14 (App. 2016) ( ).
Razdan v. Razdan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Razdan v. Razdan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Moreover, the court exercises continuing jurisdiction to enforce divorce decrees through its equitable powers “to do full and complete justice between the parties.” ¶ 14 (App. 2016) ().
Jensen v. Beirne 386 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jensen v. Beirne 386 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 14 By contrast, the enforcement of dissolution decrees, typically through the court’s contempt power, is generally predicated upon the equitable power of the family court “to do full and complete justice between the parties.” Genda v. Superior Court (Pima Cty.)
In Re the Marriage of Margain and Ruiz-Bours 372 P.3d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
In Re the Marriage of Margain and Ruiz-Bours 372 P.3d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
-48, see also Stewart, 91 Ariz. at 358, 372 P.2d at 699, quoting Nat’l Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards v. Arnold, 348 U.S. 37, 45 (1954) (“The United States Supreme Court has ruled that dismissal of a contumacious appellant’s appeal .
Arpaio v. Baca 177 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Arpaio v. Baca 177 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-48 , -95 (1931) (noting that inherent powers exist only to the extent necessary for the ordinary and efficient exercise of jurisdiction already established)
Solomon v. Findley 808 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1991
Overruled Solomon v. Findley 808 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1991
In so holding, , “insofar as it purports to permit the Superior Court independent of statutory authority to enforce provisions in a divorce decree for payment of support after a child reaches the age of majority.” Helber, 118 Ariz. at 218 , 575 P.2d at 1244 .
Price v. Maxwell 681 P.2d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Price v. Maxwell 681 P.2d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Genda v. Superior Court, County of Pima, , (overruled on other grounds)
Silver v. Rose 661 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
Allegations of abuse of discretion, such as that made by the state in the case at bar, had come to fall more commonly within the grounds for issuance of a writ of certiorari, see, e. g., , Genda v. Superior Court, County of Pima, , overruled on other grounds, , , although mandamus was occasionally used to correct serious abuses of discretion.
Bilagody v. Thorneycroft 607 P.2d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Bilagody v. Thorneycroft 607 P.2d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
See, e. g., Genda v. Superior Court, County of Pima
Armstrong v. City Court of Scottsdale 578 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Armstrong v. City Court of Scottsdale 578 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
See Genda v. Superior Court, County of Pima, , Caruso v. Superior Court, County of Pima, , -66 (1966).
Helber v. Frazelle 575 P.2d 1243 Ariz. 1978
Helber v. Frazelle 575 P.2d 1243 Ariz. 1978
Provinzano v. Provinzano 570 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Provinzano v. Provinzano 570 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
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
To conclude otherwise would require that we not only ignore the result reached in Ruhsam, but also that we presume that the Ruhsam court meant to overrule, without expressing any intent to do so, , which did allow the direct enforcement of such a judgment.
O'Hair v. O'Hair 508 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1973
O'Hair v. O'Hair 508 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1973
As to this, , the general rule that a court in a divorce suit is without power to provide for the support of an adult child of the parties.
Hemmer v. Superior Court 499 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Hemmer v. Superior Court 499 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Since relief by way of special action is the appropriate vehicle to determine whether a lower court has abused its discretion in refusing to accept jurisdiction, , we assume jurisdiction.
O'Hair v. O'Hair 494 P.2d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
O'Hair v. O'Hair 494 P.2d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Gordon v. Valley National Bank of Arizona 492 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Gordon v. Valley National Bank of Arizona 492 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Genda v. Superior Court, County of Pima
Randolph v. Howard 491 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Randolph v. Howard 491 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Wick v. Wick 489 P.2d 19 Ariz. 1971
Wick v. Wick 489 P.2d 19 Ariz. 1971
Genda v. Superior Court, County of Pima
State Ex Rel. Ariz. St. Bd. of P. & P. v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 467 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State Ex Rel. Ariz. St. Bd. of P. & P. v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 467 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
citing Caruso repeats the guiding principle of essential justice.
Johnson v. Collins 464 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Johnson v. Collins 464 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
(For other departures from this rule, see e. g., Genda v. Superior Court, County of Pima, , State ex rel.
Goodrich v. Industrial Commission 463 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Goodrich v. Industrial Commission 463 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
We did not in the Morrison ease make a

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by