DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Johnson v. Johnson, 462 P.2d 782.

26 citing documents.

  • 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
    Evans v. Evans, 17 Ariz.App.
  • Smart v. Cantor 574 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1977
  • McNeal v. Mahoney 574 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1977
  • Smart v. Cantor 574 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1977
    However, when a person petitions the court for a writ of habeas corpus in a child custody matter, the paramount issues are the best interests and the welfare of the child, “rather than the technical legal right of the parent.”
  • McNeal v. Mahoney 574 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1977
  • Stuard v. Bean 554 P.2d 1293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • Stuard v. Bean 554 P.2d 1293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    cited in Stone, the court explained the reason for the no abduction rule: “ .
  • Graton v. Graton 537 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Graton v. Graton 537 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    The Arizona cases dealing with jurisdiction in this area are Johnson v. Johnson, *196 , (determining the jurisdiction of Arizona courts to modify an Arizona decree where minor children and former spouse reside in California and neither are in this jurisdiction at time modification is sought) ; Brown v. Brown, supra, (determining the jurisdiction of Arizona courts to modify an.
  • Gowland v. Martin 520 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Gowland v. Martin 520 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Deatrick v. Galligan 500 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • Deatrick v. Galligan 500 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
    (4) That the children desire to remain here, and are of an age to ascertain their own custodian and guardian.” , , it was made clear that the superior court of this state exceeds its jurisdiction when it attempts to change custody of a child who is domiciled in another state.
  • Garlitz v. Rozar 500 P.2d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Garlitz v. Rozar 500 P.2d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    In support of her first theory
  • Evans v. Evans 497 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • Evans v. Evans 497 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • Lubbehusen v. Lubbehusen 490 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Lubbehusen v. Lubbehusen 490 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    Except as may be involved in a , the Arizona court has continuing jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S.
  • Application of Stone 481 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Application of Stone 481 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • 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
  • Brown v. Brown 463 P.2d 71 Ariz. 1969
  • Brown v. Brown 463 P.2d 71 Ariz. 1969
    ■ However, , , disposes of this matter.