Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Marriage of Little v. Little, 975 P.2d 108.

274 citing documents.

Mangan v. Mangan 258 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Ramsay v. WHEELER-RAMSAY 232 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ramsay v. WHEELER-RAMSAY 232 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
There is an abuse of discretion if there is no evidence to support the family court’s decision, ¶ 5 , or if the court made an error of law.
Pullen v. Pullen 222 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Pullen v. Pullen 222 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 12 ¶ 11 , the Arizona Supreme Court adopted an intermediate balancing test to determine whether to use actual income or earning capacity to calculate child support when a parent voluntary reduces his or her income.
Engel v. Landman 212 P.3d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Engel v. Landman 212 P.3d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Maximov v. Maximov 205 P.3d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Maximov v. Maximov 205 P.3d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 5 , (child support); ¶ 9 , (spousal maintenance).
Duwyenie v. Moran 207 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Duwyenie v. Moran 207 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Jenkins v. Jenkins 156 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Jenkins v. Jenkins 156 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Guerra v. Bejarano 133 P.3d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Guerra v. Bejarano 133 P.3d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Although we review the court’s decision to modify the child support award for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 5 , we review its interpretation of § 25-327(A) and the Guidelines de novo as questions of law.
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Burton 66 P.3d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Burton 66 P.3d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Hamblen v. Hamblen 54 P.3d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Hamblen v. Hamblen 54 P.3d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
1Í23 “A parent’s child support obligation is paramount to all other financial obligations, and that parent has a legal duty to support his or her biological and adopted children.” , 521 ¶ 6
Marriage of McNutt v. McNutt 49 P.3d 300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Marriage of McNutt v. McNutt 49 P.3d 300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 19 ¶ 11 , our supreme court adopted an “intermediate balancing test” for trial courts to apply when deciding *33 whether to use actual income or earning capacity in making a support determination when a non-custodial parent voluntarily reduces his or her income by terminating employment.
In Re Marriage of Robinson and Thiel 35 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
In Re Marriage of Robinson and Thiel 35 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Green 29 P.3d 271 Ariz. 2001