Cited by

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

1369 citing documents.

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
Jordan C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 219 P.3d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Denise R. v. Ades, Draven R. and Larsen R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Denise R. v. Ades, Draven R. and Larsen R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
A juvenile court’s termination order must be supported by clear and convincing evidence or, in other words, evidence that makes the proposition to be proved “‘highly probable or reasonably certain.’” -19 (2005), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 577 (7th ed. 1999).
Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 198 P.3d 1203 Ariz. 2009
Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 198 P.3d 1203 Ariz. 2009
Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 195 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 195 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
§ 8-533(B), ¶22 , (explaining that the “preponderance of the evidence” standard applies to the best interests determination), should be determined under a heightened standard of proof for Indian children.
Bobby G. v. Ades & Allison G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Bobby G. v. Ades & Allison G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Marco C. v. Sean C. & Colleen C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Marco C. v. Sean C. & Colleen C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶9 “When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain language and need not engage in any other means of statutory interpretation.” 1 In his reply brief, Marco argues the statute provides no guidance to courts for determining what constitutes clear and convincing evidence for purposes of § 8-106.01(E).
Kimu P. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 178 P.3d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Kimu P. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 178 P.3d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Therefore, “the best interests inquiry focuses primarily upon the interests of the child, as distinct from those of the parent.” ¶37
John M. v. Ades, Shannon M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
John M. v. Ades, Shannon M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
DIANA H. v. Rubin 171 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
DIANA H. v. Rubin 171 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
1388, 1394-95 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); , In re Cochise County Juvenile Action No. 5666-J
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-85, ¶25 , -19 (2005) (clear and convincing evidence is a heightened standard of proof indicating the fact is highly probable or reasonably certain).
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See Kent K v. Bobby M., -85, ¶25 , -19 (2005) (clear and convincing evidence is a heightened standard of proof indicating the fact is highly probable or reasonably certain).
Donald W. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 159 P.3d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Donald W. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 159 P.3d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. v. Weitz Co. 158 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. v. Weitz Co. 158 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Natalie Z. 153 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
In Re Natalie Z. 153 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
-19 (2005) (defining “clear and convincing” as “‘highly probable’”), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1201 (7th ed. 1999).
Christy C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 153 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Christy C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 153 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Marina P. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 152 P.3d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Marina P. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 152 P.3d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
§ 8-533(B); -84 , -18 (2005).
Robbins v. Darrow 148 P.3d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Robbins v. Darrow 148 P.3d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
When a statute is clear and unambiguous, “we apply its plain language and need not engage in any other means of statutory interpretation.” ¶ 14 , ¶ 16 , (statutory language “is the most reliable index of its meaning.”).
Northwest Fire District v. U.S. Home of Arizona Construction Co. 143 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Northwest Fire District v. U.S. Home of Arizona Construction Co. 143 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Scott Douglas Nordstrom v. State of Arizona 142 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Scott Douglas Nordstrom v. State of Arizona 142 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
“‘When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain language and need not engage in any other means of statutory interpretation.’” State v. Arellano, No. CV-05-0397-SA, ¶ 9, 2006 WL 1412884, *3 (Ariz. May 24, 2006), (“[A] statute’s language is the most reliable index of its meaning.”).
Kelly R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 137 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006