DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hays v. Gama, 67 P.3d 695.

192 citing documents.

  • Corkery v. Love Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Corkery v. Love Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶12 P.3d 695 (2003), Love nevertheless argues the superior court should have considered the doctors’ reports in determining the best interests of the child.
  • Alvarado v. Thomson 375 P.3d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Alvarado v. Thomson 375 P.3d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    § 14-5207(B) (similar for Title 14 guardianship); , 102 ¶ 18, (“We have repeatedly stressed that the child’s best interest is paramount in custody determinations.”).
  • Wootton v. Blair Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Wootton v. Blair Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Johnson v. Provoyeur Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Johnson v. Provoyeur Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Because the paramount goal of the inquiry is to determine what will serve the children’s best interests, ¶ 18 (2003), § 25-403 provides that the court must consider and make specific findings regarding “all” factors relevant to the children’s well-being, A.R.S.
  • Johnson v. Boatley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Johnson v. Boatley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    § 25-403(A); ¶ 18, 3 Rule 65 is the family law equivalent of Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 37; as such, we look to the case law interpreting and applying Rule 37 in evaluating the family court’s application of Rule 65.
  • Backus v. Ellison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Backus v. Ellison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    L. P. 2(B), P.3d 695 (2003).
  • Spero v. Hon. herrod/spero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Spero v. Hon. herrod/spero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 18, (noting that the child’s best interest is paramount in custody and parenting time decisions under A.R.S.
  • Chapa v. Housman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Chapa v. Housman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See Reid, 222 Ariz. at 206, ¶ 9, 213 P.3d at 355; ¶¶ 21–22
  • Mayol v. Rowlls Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Mayol v. Rowlls Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    § 25-403(A), -403.01(B); ¶ 18 (2003) (“We have repeatedly stressed that the child’s best interest is paramount in custody determinations.”).
  • Strovink v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Pesetsky v. Pesetsky Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Pesetsky v. Pesetsky Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Strovink v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “When custody of children is involved in a court proceeding, it seems to us to be the duty of the trial court to hear all competent evidence which may be offered.” ¶ 21, (citation omitted) (vacating evidentiary sanction in child custody case).
  • Manola v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Manola v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶ 18, (“We have repeatedly stressed that the child's best interest is paramount in custody determinations.”).
  • Department of Child Safety v. Beene 332 P.3d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Department of Child Safety v. Beene 332 P.3d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    8-533(B) (requiring consideration of “the best interests of the child” in addressing severance); , 107 ¶ 15, (“Arizona’s statutes, case law and rules of procedure reflect that the juvenile court is obligated to oversee the dependency case, [and] to consider the best interests of the child in every decision.”); , 102 ¶ 18, (noting, in Title 25 child custody context, “[w]e have repeatedly stressed that the child’s best interest is paramount in custody determinations”) (citing cases).
  • Caskey v. Battani Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Caskey v. Battani Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶ 20, (upholding order that contemptuous parent pay therapist’s fees because order was narrowly tailored to address specific contempt, and did not affect the family court’s ability to consider the best interests of the child).
  • Nold v. Nold 304 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Nold v. Nold 304 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    ¶ 18 , in child custody cases, when a child is affected by sanctions, A.R.S.
  • Thompson v. Corry 291 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Thompson v. Corry 291 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    ¶ 20 , (stating purpose of § 25-324); ¶ 23 , (acknowledging purpose of sanctions in domestic dispute).
  • Navajo Nation v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 284 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Navajo Nation v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 284 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    -04, ¶¶ 21-24 , -700 (2003) (finding trial court erred in imposing sanction precluding admission of evidence which would affect best interest determination of child).
  • ARIZONA DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SEC. v. Lee 264 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • ARIZONA DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SEC. v. Lee 264 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    [6] ¶ 18 , (holding that court must consider best interests of the child when deciding whether to impose contempt sanctions in custody case).
  • Reid v. Reid 213 P.3d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Reid v. Reid 213 P.3d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    ¶ 9 , supports the family court’s decision, and we agree.
  • Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    See Hays, , 67 P.3d at 698 .
  • Downs v. Scheffler 80 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Downs v. Scheffler 80 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    ¶ 18 , (“We have repeatedly stressed that the child’s best interest is paramount in custody determinations.”).