DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Schroeder v. Schroeder, 778 P.2d 1212.

75 citing documents.

  • Gazeley v. Larsen-Gazeley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶5 The purpose of a spousal maintenance award is “to achieve independence for both parties and to require an effort toward independence by the party requesting maintenance.”
  • State v. Patterson 218 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Patterson 218 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    ¶ 17 , when resolving conflicting decisions between departments in Divisions 1 and 2.
  • State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Waldren 171 P.3d 1214 Ariz. 2007
  • State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Waldren 171 P.3d 1214 Ariz. 2007
    § 25-317(A); -23 , -19 (1989).
  • Cullum v. Cullum 160 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Cullum v. Cullum 160 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    section 25-327(A) (2007)
  • Diefenbach v. Holmberg 26 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Diefenbach v. Holmberg 26 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    And, Holmberg’s , is misplaced because that case, which allows spousal maintenance awards to be modified absent a statement that they are nonmodifiable, simply did not address the language requirements for making a spousal maintenance award survive the recipient spouse’s death.
  • Marriage of Gutierrez v. Gutierrez 972 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Marriage of Gutierrez v. Gutierrez 972 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    overruled on other grounds, , the husband sold a community asset without the wife’s knowledge and lost the proceeds gambling.
  • Van Dyke v. Steinle 902 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Van Dyke v. Steinle 902 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    (purpose of spousal maintenance is to achieve independence for both parties).
  • Evitt v. Evitt 877 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Evitt v. Evitt 877 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    Section 25-319(C) states: “The court shall maintain continuing jurisdiction over the issue of maintenance for the period of time maintenance is awarded.” , as the dispos-itive case in interpreting AR.S.
  • Hughes v. Hughes 869 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Hughes v. Hughes 869 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    at 503 , 869 P.2d at 179 ; , (the aim of spousal maintenance “is to achieve independence for both parties and to require an effort toward independence by the party requesting maintenance”).
  • Rainwater v. Rainwater 869 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Rainwater v. Rainwater 869 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    husband emphasizes the supreme court’s statement that *503 the current aim [of spousal maintenance] is to achieve independence for both parties and to require an effort toward independence by the party requesting maintenance.
  • Brooks v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. 839 P.2d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Brooks v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. 839 P.2d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    Charles M. Smith & Irwin Cantor, Arizona Practice: Marriage Dissolution Practice § 308, at 338 (1988); , (award of spousal maintenance modifiable unless'expressly provides otherwise).
  • Appels-Meehan v. Appels 805 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • Appels-Meehan v. Appels 805 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • Marriage of Elliott v. Elliott 796 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • Marriage of Elliott v. Elliott 796 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    which was filed while this appeal was pending.