Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pendleton v. Brown, 221 P. 213.

34 citing documents.

Associated Students of the University v. Arizona Board of Regents 584 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Associated Students of the University v. Arizona Board of Regents 584 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Crone v. Amado, supra; , 266 P. 3 (1928); , 221 P. 213 (1923).
Hatch v. Hatch 534 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hatch v. Hatch 534 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
3 See Reed, supra; Honig, supra; , 221 P. 213 (1923); *491 Spector v. Spector, 17 Ariz.App.
Union Bank v. Pfeffer 502 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Union Bank v. Pfeffer 502 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Musker v. Gil Haskins Auto Leasing, Inc. 500 P.2d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Musker v. Gil Haskins Auto Leasing, Inc. 500 P.2d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
They neglect, however, to point out that "‘the character of the property, as to being separate or community, becomes fixed at the time it is acquired.” , 221 P. 213, 215 (1923).
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
Staley v. Estate of Harber 449 P.2d 7 Ariz. 1969
Staley v. Estate of Harber 449 P.2d 7 Ariz. 1969
In Arizona, the husband is the manager of the community, , 221 P. 213 (1923).
King v. Uhlmann 437 P.2d 928 Ariz. 1968
King v. Uhlmann 437 P.2d 928 Ariz. 1968
While the rule is well settled that the character of community property is fixed at the time of its acquisition and the wife’s interest vests at that time ( , 221 P. 213 ; McDonald v. v. Lambert, 43 N.M.
Kingsbery v. Kingsbery 379 P.2d 893 Ariz. 1963
Kingsbery v. Kingsbery 379 P.2d 893 Ariz. 1963
221 P. 213 , this Court announced the rule, which we still adhere to, that “the character of the property, as to being separate or community, becomes fixed at the time it is acquired * * Further, “when the status is once fixed, the property retains its character until changed by agreement of the parties or by operat
Honig v. Honig 269 P.2d 737 Ariz. 1954
Honig v. Honig 269 P.2d 737 Ariz. 1954
Lawson v. Ridgeway 233 P.2d 459 Ariz. 1951
Lawson v. Ridgeway 233 P.2d 459 Ariz. 1951
It being the law that property takes its character as community or separate estate at the time of its acquisition, , 221 P. 213 ; , 278 P. 370 ; , , these vacant lots that belonged to Mr. Lawson and which were improved with community funds retained their character as his separate property, , , and thus plaintiff
Crone v. Amado 214 P.2d 518 Ariz. 1950
Crone v. Amado 214 P.2d 518 Ariz. 1950
* * * ” , 266 P. 3 , it was held that when the terms of a contract are in doubt practical construction by the parties may be considered; , 221 P. 213 , it was held that the court will adopt a construction given to a contract by the parties themselves unless such construction does violence to the express terms of the writing, especially where such interpretation has extended over a long period of time.
Porter v. Porter 195 P.2d 132 Ariz. 1948
Porter v. Porter 195 P.2d 132 Ariz. 1948
“The character of the property, as to being separate or community, becomes fixed at the time it is acquired.” , 221 P. 213, 215 .
Monaghan v. Kennerdell 137 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1943
Monaghan v. Kennerdell 137 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1943
Brown v. Brown 300 P. 1007 Ariz. 1931
Brown v. Brown 300 P. 1007 Ariz. 1931
Rundle v. Winters 298 P. 929 Ariz. 1931
Rundle v. Winters 298 P. 929 Ariz. 1931
Stephen v. Stephen 284 P. 158 Ariz. 1930
Stephen v. Stephen 284 P. 158 Ariz. 1930
Horton v. Horton 278 P. 370 Ariz. 1929
Horton v. Horton 278 P. 370 Ariz. 1929