Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kent K. v. Bobby M., 110 P.3d 1013.

1357 citing documents.

Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Rocky J. 323 P.3d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sec., ¶ 12, and a preponderance of the evidence shows that termination is in the child’s best interest, Father argues that ADES’s September 21, 2013, notice of appeal divested the juvenile court of jurisdiction to consider ADES’s motion for reconsideration filed the same day, which precludes this Court from considering ADES’s subsequent appeal from the denial of the motion for reconsideration.
Anna T. v. Ades, J.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Anna T. v. Ades, J.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
William W. v. Brooke S., P.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
William W. v. Brooke S., P.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Cutter v. Cutter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Cutter v. Cutter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Clear and convincing evidence “indicates that ‘the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain’” and “places a heavier burden upon one party to prove its case to a reasonable certainty.” -85, ¶ 25, -19 (2005).
Jose M. v. Eleanor J. 316 P.3d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Jose M. v. Eleanor J. 316 P.3d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative 314 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative 314 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
highly probable or reasonably certain.’” -19 (2005), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 577 (7th ed. 1999).
Bennigno R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 312 P.3d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Bennigno R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 312 P.3d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Carolina H. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 307 P.3d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Carolina H. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 307 P.3d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶¶ 22, 24 , Maricopa Cnty.
Calvin B. v. Brittany B. 304 P.3d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Calvin B. v. Brittany B. 304 P.3d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
§ 8-537(B) (West 2013); -82, ¶ 7 , -16 (2005).
Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state 295 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2013
Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state 295 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2013
Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 283 ¶ 14
Cornerstone Hospital of Southeast Arizona v. Ernest H. Blackburn 290 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Cornerstone Hospital of Southeast Arizona v. Ernest H. Blackburn 290 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
But if a statute’s terms are ambiguous, “‘we determine legislative intent by looking first to the text and context of the statute.’” Id., quoting Baker, 269 P.3d at 1213
Mikel Lo, M.D. and Mikel W. Lo, M.d, Inc. v. Mills 298 P.3d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Mikel Lo, M.D. and Mikel W. Lo, M.d, Inc. v. Mills 298 P.3d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
“If a statute is ambiguous, such as when terms are undefined, ‘we determine legislative intent by looking first to the text and context of the statute.’” Id., ¶¶ 14-15
Ruben M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 282 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Ruben M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 282 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In balancing these interests, the court may order severance as long as it provides “fundamentally fair procedures.” ¶ 24 , (quoting Santosky, 455 U.S. at 754 , 102 S.Ct.
Xavier R. and Athena R. v. Ades and Joseph R. 280 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Xavier R. and Athena R. v. Ades and Joseph R. 280 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
§ 8-533(B); On the first day of the contested severance hearing, ADES moved to amend its motion to terminate parental rights to include, as a ground for severance as to both children, that they had been in a court-ordered, out-of-home placement for nine months or longer.
Lisa K. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 281 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Lisa K. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 281 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Cecilia A. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 274 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cecilia A. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 274 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 24 , Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-501904
Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare, Wittman, Arizona Board of Regents 269 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare, Wittman, Arizona Board of Regents 269 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
If a statute is ambiguous, such as when terms are undefined, “we determine legislative intent by looking first to the text and context of the statute.” ¶¶ 14-15
Yvonne L. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 258 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Yvonne L. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 258 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Christina G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 256 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Christina G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 256 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
In Re Eddie O. 253 P.3d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
In Re Eddie O. 253 P.3d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
When a statute is “clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain language and need not engage in any other means of statutory interpretation.” ¶ 14
Kenneth B. v. Tina B. 243 P.3d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Kenneth B. v. Tina B. 243 P.3d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
§ 8-537(B) (2007); -82, ¶ 7 , -16 (2005).
Raymond F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 231 P.3d 377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Raymond F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 231 P.3d 377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
§ 37-1121(B) (requiring that members of ANSAC be unbiased and not have interests affected by the Commission’s determination); , (recognizing that the preponderance of the evidence standard “essentially allocates the risk of error equally between the parties involved”).
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Matthew L. 225 P.3d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Matthew L. 225 P.3d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Jordan C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 219 P.3d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Jordan C. , Jesse C., Kailynn C., Michele C. v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Jordan C. , Jesse C., Kailynn C., Michele C. v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009