Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Marriage of Flynn v. Rogers, 834 P.2d 148.

26 citing documents.

Arizona Republican Party v. Richer Ariz. 2024
Arizona Republican Party v. Richer Ariz. 2024
Additionally, it is an affirmative defense, and a trial court applies laches at its discretion, ¶ 6 (2010).
Milham v. Milham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Milham v. Milham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
–68 (1992) (expenditure of other spouse’s benefits alone does not constitute prejudice).
Eans-Snoderly v. Snoderly 473 P.3d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Eans-Snoderly v. Snoderly 473 P.3d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Kimball v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kimball v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
League of Ariz. Cities & ¶ 6 (2009)
Fox v. Maricopa Co Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Fox v. Maricopa Co Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Moreover, we note that the burden is on Appellees to show unreasonable delay and resulting prejudice, and here, Appellees have asserted prejudice but have not specifically explained how Fox’s delay in seeking special action review has affected their ability to defend the case.
Rash v. Town of Mammoth 315 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Rash v. Town of Mammoth 315 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
League of Ariz. Cities and Towns v. Martin 201 P.3d 517 Ariz. 2009
League of Ariz. Cities and Towns v. Martin 201 P.3d 517 Ariz. 2009
( , ); Tovrea v. Umphress, 27 Ariz.App.
Mayer Unified School and Gadsen Elementary School v. Winkleman, Az State Land Dept... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Mayer Unified School and Gadsen Elementary School v. Winkleman, Az State Land Dept... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(“delay must come after the party against whom the defense is asserted becomes 42 aware of or has knowledge of .
Harris v. Purcell 973 P.2d 1166 Ariz. 1998
Harris v. Purcell 973 P.2d 1166 Ariz. 1998
Mathieu, 174 Ariz. at 459 , 851 P.2d at 85 ( , ).
State ex rel. Department of Economic Security v. Vallejo 979 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State ex rel. Department of Economic Security v. Vallejo 979 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Dodd 888 P.2d 1370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Dodd 888 P.2d 1370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(claim involving initiative measure’s alleged violation of single subject provision); , (claim involving disposition of military pension benefits in a reopened dissolution decree); , , 798 *188 (1987) (child support reimbursement cross-claim).
Mathieu v. Mahoney 851 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1993
Mathieu v. Mahoney 851 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1993
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 851 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 851 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
the Arizona Supreme Court reversed a decision of the court of appeals which held that the defense of laches (a form of estoppel) was applicable because delay based on the party’s mere lack of knowledge of her legal rights was inexcusable.