10 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1933–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bagalini v. Arizona Department of Economic Securitygreen2 sentences1992Freightways also concedes that recent cases involving statutory exemptions other than § 23-1068(B) have treated spousal maintenance as a similar overriding obligation. “[S]tatutes exempting property from legal process in the enforcement of a claim against a husband or father are not applicable to a claim for alimony or support.” Bagalini v. Dept. of Economic Sec., 135 Ariz. 326, 328 , 660 P.2d 1253, 1255 (App.1983) (dictum). 1992Freightways also concedes that recent cases involving statutory exemptions other than § 23-1068(B) have treated spousal maintenance as a similar overriding obligation. “[S]tatutes exempting property from legal process in the enforcement of a claim against a husband or father are not applicable to a claim for alimony or support.” Bagalini v. Dept. of Economic Sec., 135 Ariz. 326, 328 , 660 P.2d 1253, 1255 (App.1983) (dictum). | 1 | 2 |
Rose v. Rosegreen2 sentences1992See also Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, 636 , 107 S.Ct. 2029, 2039 , 95 L.Ed.2d 599 (1987) (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and distinguishing familial support obligations from other debts) (dictum). 1992See also Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, 636 , 107 S.Ct. 2029, 2039 , 95 L.Ed.2d 599 (1987) (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and distinguishing familial support obligations from other debts) (dictum). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Zuckerman v. Transamerica Insurance
green
2 sentences2003Id. at 146 , 650 P.2d at 448 . [T]he insurer may be estopped from raising a defense based upon such an adhesive clause where the enforcement of the clause would work an unjust forfeiture. 2003Id. at 146 , 650 P.2d at 448 . [T]he insurer may be estopped from raising a defense based upon such an adhesive clause where the enforcement of the clause would work an unjust forfeiture. | 2 | 1986–2003 |
State v. Reed
green
2 sentences1988Meadows v. Meadows, 619 P.2d 598 (Okl.1980); State v. Reed, 5 Conn.Cir. 69, 241 A.2d 875 (1967); 24 Am.Jur.2d Divorce and Separation § 721 (1966). 1983Meadows v. Meadows, 619 P.2d 598 (Okl.1980); State v. Reed, 5 Conn.Cir. 69, 241 A.2d 875 (1967); 24 Am. | 2 | 1983–1988 |
Meadows v. Meadows
green
2 sentences1988Meadows v. Meadows, 619 P.2d 598 (Okl.1980); State v. Reed, 5 Conn.Cir. 69, 241 A.2d 875 (1967); 24 Am.Jur.2d Divorce and Separation § 721 (1966). 1983Meadows v. Meadows, 619 P.2d 598 (Okl.1980); State v. Reed, 5 Conn.Cir. 69, 241 A.2d 875 (1967); 24 Am. | 2 | 1983–1988 |
National Homes Corp. v. Totem Mobile Home Sales, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022Nat’l Homes Corp. v. Totem Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 140 Ariz. 434 , 437–38 (App. 1984). ¶7 Without regard to the proceedings resulting in the 2017 judgment, Castorena voluntarily appeared at the enforcement hearing resulting in the 2019 judgment. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Herndon
green
1 sentence2007“The only effective method of protecting an investigated party against these possible abuses is to require the Attorney General, if challenged on that ground, to make some showing at the enforcement hearing that there is reasonable cause to believe that there has been a violation of the act.” Id. ¶ 32 In this case there is no requirement in A.R.S. § 13-2315, as there was in the Consumer Fraud Act, that the Attorney General identify a specific target and crime for his investigation. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Bickel v. Bickel
green
2 sentences1983Since statutes exempting property from legal process in the enforcement of a claim for debt, or debt arising from a contractual are not applicable against a claim for alimony or support, Bickel v. Bickel, 17 Ariz.App. 29 , 495 P.2d 154 (1972), up to one-half of Mr. Bagalini’s unemployment benefits were not exempt. 1983Since statutes exempting property from legal process in the enforcement of a claim for debt, or debt arising from a contractual are not applicable against a claim for alimony or support, Bickel v. Bickel, 17 Ariz.App. 29 , 495 P.2d 154 (1972), up to one-half of Mr. Bagalini’s unemployment benefits were not exempt. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Lindsey v. Normet
green
2 sentences1978While due process may require that appellee have an opportunity to present every available defense at the enforcement hearing, Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 , 92 S.Ct. 862 , 31 L.Ed.2d 36 (1972), it does not guarantee him any particular form or method of procedure. 1978While due process may require that appellee have an opportunity to present every available defense at the enforcement hearing, Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 , 92 S.Ct. 862 , 31 L.Ed.2d 36 (1972), it does not guarantee him any particular form or method of procedure. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Rio Grande Irrigation & Colonization Co. v. Gildersleeve
green
2 sentences1936In the case of Rio Grande Irr. etc. Co. v. Gildersleeve, 174 U. S. 603 , 19 Sup. Ct. 761, 763, 43 L. 1936In the case of Rio Grande Irr. etc. Co. v. Gildersleeve, 174 U. S. 603 , 19 Sup. Ct. 761, 763, 43 L. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Heirs of Andrades v. Sosa Oliva
green
1 sentence1933The court said: “The doctrine of this court as to the enforcement of such contracts has been so fully and clearly stated and affirmed in such cases as Owens v. McNally, 113 Cal. 444 , 45 Pac. 710 , 33 L. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Owens v. McNally
green
1 sentence1933The court said: “The doctrine of this court as to the enforcement of such contracts has been so fully and clearly stated and affirmed in such cases as Owens v. McNally, 113 Cal. 444 , 45 Pac. 710 , 33 L. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.