Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Schofield v. Gold, 225 P. 71.

42 citing documents.

Spector v. Spector 531 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Spector v. Spector 531 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
and, later, , 259 P. 282 (1927), it said: “ , 25 P. 652 , , 225 P. 71 , 37 A.L.R.
Bachrach v. Stark 464 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Bachrach v. Stark 464 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Rodieck v. Rodieck 450 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Rodieck v. Rodieck 450 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
First Nat’l , 234 P. 556 (1925); , 225 P. 71 , 37 A.L.R.
Staley v. Estate of Harber 449 P.2d 7 Ariz. 1969
Staley v. Estate of Harber 449 P.2d 7 Ariz. 1969
903 (1927): “ , 25 P. 652 , , 225 P. 71 , 37 A.L.R.
Lecky v. Staley 435 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Lecky v. Staley 435 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
310 , , 225 P. 71 , 37 A.L.R.
Arizona Central Credit Union v. Holden 432 P.2d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Arizona Central Credit Union v. Holden 432 P.2d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Jacobs v. Jacobs 415 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Bristor v. Cheatham 240 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1952
Monaghan v. Kennerdell 173 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1946
In Re Monaghan's Estate 173 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1946
Monaghan v. Kennerdell 173 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1946
Estate of Wilson, supra; Pauley v. Hadlock, supra; , 225 P. 71 , 37 A.L.R.
In Re Monaghan's Estate 173 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1946
Estate of Wilson, supra; Pauley v. Hadlock, supra; , 225 P. 71 , 37 A.L.R.
Manor v. Stevens 152 P.2d 133 Ariz. 1944
Manor v. Stevens 152 P.2d 133 Ariz. 1944
169 , followed by a rehearing, reported in , 225 Pac.
Tyson v. Tyson 149 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1944
Tyson v. Tyson 149 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1944
Schwartz v. Schwartz 79 P.2d 501 Ariz. 1938
Schwartz v. Schwartz 79 P.2d 501 Ariz. 1938
Baldwin v. Baldwin 71 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1937
Baldwin v. Baldwin 71 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1937
639 , and other cases, it has been decided by *274 this court that a husband may convey his interest in the community to his wife, , 225 Pac.
Blackman v. Blackman 43 P.2d 1011 Ariz. 1935
Blackman v. Blackman 43 P.2d 1011 Ariz. 1935
Lightning Delivery Co. v. Matteson 39 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1935
Lightning Delivery Co. v. Matteson 39 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1935
and the same shall not be liable for the debts or obligations of the husband, and may be sold, mortgaged, conveyed, or bequeathed by them as if they were unmarried.” When, therefore, the plaintiff and her husband divided the property between them on September 26, 1931, in contemplation of a separation, its status was changed from that of community to that of separate property ( , 225 Pac.
Oglesby v. Poage 40 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1935
Oglesby v. Poage 40 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1935
Strahan v. Haynes 262 P. 995 Ariz. 1928
Strahan v. Haynes 262 P. 995 Ariz. 1928
652 , , 37 A. L. R. 275, 225 Pac.
Hall v. Weatherford 259 P. 282 Ariz. 1927
Hall v. Weatherford 259 P. 282 Ariz. 1927
652 , , 37 A. L. R. 275, 225 Pac.
Jones v. Rigdon 257 P. 639 Ariz. 1927
Jones v. Rigdon 257 P. 639 Ariz. 1927
888 ; , 37 A. L. R. 275, 225 Pac.
Colvin v. Fagg 249 P. 70 Ariz. 1926
Colvin v. Fagg 249 P. 70 Ariz. 1926
37 A. L. R. 275, 225 Pac.
First National Bank of Mesa v. Reeves 234 P. 556 Ariz. 1925
First National Bank of Mesa v. Reeves 234 P. 556 Ariz. 1925