Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite McFadden v. McFadden, 196 P. 452.

66 citing documents.

Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
In Re the Marriage of Zale 972 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1999
In Re the Marriage of Zale 972 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1999
Jepson v. New 792 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1990
Flynn v. Cornoyer-Hedrick Architects & Planners, Inc. 772 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Flynn v. Cornoyer-Hedrick Architects & Planners, Inc. 772 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
196 P. 452 (1921) our supreme court, in discussing the difference between formal findings of fact and a minute entry, stated: “At most, we think the minute entry is evidence that the court ordered a judgment, the terms thereof to be ascertained when it was written up and signed by the court.” (Emphasis added.)
In Re Marriage of Berger 680 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
In Re Marriage of Berger 680 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Bryan v. Bryan 645 P.2d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Bryan v. Bryan 645 P.2d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Anderson v. Anderson 590 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Anderson v. Anderson 590 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
196 P. 452 (1921), appellant argues that the presumption in favor of the mother is of common law origin and remains in effect in Arizona because it is not inconsistent with the best interests standard of § 25-332(A).
Ivancovich v. Ivancovich 540 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Ivancovich v. Ivancovich 540 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Olsztyn v. Olsztyn 514 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Olsztyn v. Olsztyn 514 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
196 P. 452 (1921); Davis v. Davis, 18 Ariz.App.
Badertscher v. Badertscher 460 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Badertscher v. Badertscher 460 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
A parent is entitled to reasonable visitation rights, , 196 P. 452 (1921), if it is in the child’s best interest.
Winch v. Fong 441 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
In Re Estate and Guardianship of Purton 441 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
In Re Estate and Guardianship of Purton 441 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
249 P. 71 (1926); , 233 P. 895 (1925); , 196 P. 452 (1921).
Winch v. Fong 441 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Stock Growers’ , 249 P. 71 (1926); , 233 P. 895 (1925); , 196 P. 452 (1921).
Bowen v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corporation 423 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Bowen v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corporation 423 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
249 P. 71 (1926) ; , 233 P. 895 (1925); , 196 P. 452 (1921).
Bergman v. Bergman 401 P.2d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Bergman v. Bergman 401 P.2d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
196 P. 452 ; , 271 P. 717 ; Ward v. Ward.
Ward v. Ward 371 P.2d 1022 Ariz. 1962
Ward v. Ward 371 P.2d 1022 Ariz. 1962
Ward v. Ward, supra; , 300 P. 186 (1931); , 271 P. 717 (1928); , 196 P. 452 (1921).
Smith v. Smith 367 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1961
Smith v. Smith 367 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1961
Galbraith v. Galbraith, supra; Ward v. Ward, supra; , 271 P. 717 ; , 196 P. 452 .
Henning v. Henning 362 P.2d 124 Ariz. 1961
Henning v. Henning 362 P.2d 124 Ariz. 1961
Smith v. Smith 358 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1960
Smith v. Smith 358 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1960
Not only must the court consider the necessities measured by ability of the wife to acquire daily work but the Court must, as was properly stated in Oliver v. Oliver, Ky., 258 S.W.2d 703, 704 , “consider * * * the wife’s estate, her necessities, measured by the social position in which her marriage placed her.” , 196 P. 452 , 454: “Each case is a problem in itself that must be solved according to its own facts and circumstances, and the solution by the trial court will not ordinarily be disturbe
Galbraith v. Galbraith 356 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1960
Galbraith v. Galbraith 356 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1960
196 P. 452 ; , 271 P. 717 ; Ward v. Ward, supra In the order appealed from in this case, the trial court found that the plaintiff had recovered from her mental illness and that it would be to the best interests of the minor girls to be with the plaintiff.
Ward v. Ward 353 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1960
Ward v. Ward 353 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1960
300 P. 186 ; , 196 P. 452 ; , 271 P. 717 .
Gillespie v. Gillespie 242 P.2d 837 Ariz. 1952
Gillespie v. Gillespie 242 P.2d 837 Ariz. 1952
196 P. 452, 453 , the court said: “Moreover, we think, in conformity with the rule in at least one jurisdiction, that where there is conflict between the entry made by the clerk in the minutes and the solemn judgment of the court, the terms, of the latter should be given force and effect, rather than of the former.”
Porter v. Porter 195 P.2d 132 Ariz. 1948
Porter v. Porter 195 P.2d 132 Ariz. 1948
Johnson v. Johnson 172 P.2d 848 Ariz. 1946
Johnson v. Johnson 172 P.2d 848 Ariz. 1946
The law of this jurisdiction is that where custody of children of tender years needing a mother’s care and attention, is involved “all other things being equal, preference should be given her in its award.” , 196 P. 452, 453 ; Bradstreet v. Bradstreet, supra.
Patterson v. Patterson 163 P.2d 850 Ariz. 1945
Patterson v. Patterson 163 P.2d 850 Ariz. 1945
Laughlin v. Laughlin 143 P.2d 336 Ariz. 1943
Laughlin v. Laughlin 143 P.2d 336 Ariz. 1943
Hiatt v. Hiatt 80 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1938
Overruled Hiatt v. Hiatt 80 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1938