DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Nace v. Nace, 448 P.2d 76.

76 citing documents.

  • Gebran v. Gebran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Gebran v. Gebran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Armstrong v. Armstrong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Armstrong v. Armstrong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    (stating that “property acquired by either husband or wife during the marriage, except that which is acquired 3 ARMSTRONG v. ARMSTRONG Decision of the Court by gift, devise or descent .
  • Kim v. Pak 560 P.3d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Kim v. Pak 560 P.3d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    If an asset is acquired during marriage with the profits of a separate-property business, and those profits contain both separate and community funds, the value of the acquired asset “must be apportioned accordingly.”
  • Brucklier v. Brucklier 516 P.3d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Brucklier v. Brucklier 516 P.3d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    § 25-211(A); –23 (1968).
  • Nackard v. Nackard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Nackard v. Nackard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    [provides the community with] a claim for reimbursement”); (“[T]he mere commingling of funds does not have the effect of destroying the identity of .
  • Larchick v. Pollock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Larchick v. Pollock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    To rebut this strong presumption, the spouse contending such property is separate has the burden of establishing the property is inherently separate by “clear and convincing evidence.” -23 (1968) (citations omitted); -98, ¶ 6 (App. 2005).
  • Hill v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Hill v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    § 25-213(A); (“The well settled law in this State is that the separate or community character of property is determined by its status at the time of the marriage.
  • Menghini v. Menghini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Menghini v. Menghini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    “Once property has been identified as separate or community, it remains such as long as it can continue to be segregated.” (“An asset that is separate property before marriage remains separate property after marriage until changed by agreement or operation of law.”), ¶ 8 (App. 2014).
  • Rueschenberg v. Rueschenberg 196 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Rueschenberg v. Rueschenberg 196 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    ¶22 Husband’s , vacated on other grounds in , and subsequent eases.
  • Marriage of Roden v. Roden 949 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Marriage of Roden v. Roden 949 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Honnas v. Honnas 648 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1982
  • Honnas v. Honnas 648 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1982
  • Cockrill v. Cockrill 601 P.2d 1334 Ariz. 1979
  • Cockrill v. Cockrill 601 P.2d 1334 Ariz. 1979
    348 , rev’d on other grounds, , the Court of Appeals stated: “In the absence of a clear showing that a fair salary for the husband’s efforts has been set, Arizona decisions have followed an ‘all or none’ rule, placing the earnings either all in the community, or all in the separate estate, depending upon the nature of the prope
  • 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
    348 , vacated on other grounds
  • Bender v. Bender 597 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • Bender v. Bender 597 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    ” Musker v. Gil Haskins Auto Leasing, Inc., 18 Ariz.App.
  • Sommerfield v. Sommerfield 592 P.2d 771 Ariz. 1979
  • Sommerfield v. Sommerfield 592 P.2d 771 Ariz. 1979
  • In Re Marriage of Fong 589 P.2d 1330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • In Re Marriage of Fong 589 P.2d 1330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    In holding that these reasons were not legally sound and therefore could not be utilized under the equitable powers of the court to divide community property, , (the division of community property is within the sound discretion of the trial court); , (division of community property should be substantially equal); , (in absence of sound reasons, divisio
  • McCune v. McCune 586 P.2d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • McCune v. McCune 586 P.2d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    Nace v. Nace, [ , ] supra; Spector v. Spector, [ , ] supra; Calderon v. Calderon, 9 Ariz.App.
  • Baum v. Baum 584 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • Baum v. Baum 584 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • Flowers v. Flowers 578 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • Neely v. Neely 563 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Neely v. Neely 563 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Hatch v. Hatch 547 P.2d 1044 Ariz. 1976
  • Hatch v. Hatch 547 P.2d 1044 Ariz. 1976
  • Noble v. Noble 546 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Noble v. Noble 546 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Hatch v. Hatch 534 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Hatch v. Hatch 534 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    Wine v. Wine, 14 Ariz.App.
  • Everson v. Everson 537 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Everson v. Everson 537 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Day v. Day 513 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Day v. Day 513 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    Davis v. Davis, 9 Ariz.App.
  • Myrland v. Myrland 508 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973