Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Harper v. Tipple, 184 P. 1005.

31 citing documents.

Matter of Guardianship of Cruz 741 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Matter of Guardianship of Cruz 741 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
§ 14-5206; , In re Farson’s Estate, , , 184 P. 1005 (1919); In re Thelen’s Estate, 9 Ariz.App.
HOWARD FRANK, MD, PC v. Superior Court 722 P.2d 955 Ariz. 1986
HOWARD FRANK, MD, PC v. Superior Court 722 P.2d 955 Ariz. 1986
“The law does not fly in the face of nature, but rather acts in harmony with it.” , 184 P. 1005, 1006 (1919) (citation omitted).
Bechtel v. Rose in and for Maricopa County 722 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1986
Bechtel v. Rose in and for Maricopa County 722 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1986
‘The law does not fly in the face of nature, but rather acts in harmony with it.’ ” , 184 P. 1005, 1006 (1919) (citation omitted).
In Re the Appeal in Cochise County Juvenile Action No. 5666-J 650 P.2d 459 Ariz. 1982
In Re the Appeal in Cochise County Juvenile Action No. 5666-J 650 P.2d 459 Ariz. 1982
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-75482 536 P.2d 197 Ariz. 1975
Arias v. Abilez 521 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Arias v. Abilez 521 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Gowland v. Martin 520 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Gowland v. Martin 520 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
While early decisions in this jurisdiction have spoken of the right of the natural parent to have custody of his own children as against anyone else, 1 , 184 P. 1005 (1919); , our Supreme Court has made it clear that this parental right to custody can and should be ignored if the best interests of the child demand otherwise.
In Re Estate of Thelen 450 P.2d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
In Re Estate of Thelen 450 P.2d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
184 P. 1005 (1914); In Re Guardianship of Rose, 171 Cal.App.2d 677
Anguis v. Superior Court 429 P.2d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Anguis v. Superior Court 429 P.2d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Clifford v. Woodford 320 P.2d 452 Ariz. 1957
Clifford v. Woodford 320 P.2d 452 Ariz. 1957
Arizona State Department of Public Welfare v. Barlow 296 P.2d 298 Ariz. 1956
Arizona State Department of Public Welfare v. Barlow 296 P.2d 298 Ariz. 1956
Dickason v. Sturdavan 72 P.2d 584 Ariz. 1937
Dickason v. Sturdavan 72 P.2d 584 Ariz. 1937
While it is true that a father who is a proper and fit person to care for his child, is entitled to its custody above any other person, since the “voice of nature, which declares that the father is the natural guardian of the minor child, cannot be silenced,” , 184 Pac.
Wilky v. Winn 63 P.2d 198 Ariz. 1936
Wilky v. Winn 63 P.2d 198 Ariz. 1936
Barrett v. Barrett 39 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1934
Barrett v. Barrett 39 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1934
The father cannot make a valid and irrevocable contract which relieves him from the legal obligation to maintain, support, and educate his minor child.” , 184 Pac.
Rice v. Rice 283 P. 922 Ariz. 1930
Rice v. Rice 283 P. 922 Ariz. 1930
Bradstreet v. Bradstreet 271 P. 717 Ariz. 1928
Bradstreet v. Bradstreet 271 P. 717 Ariz. 1928