Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Helland v. Hellandgreen2 sentences2026Helland v. Helland, 236 Ariz. 197, 203, ¶ 28 (App. 2014). 2025Helland v. Helland, 236 Ariz. 197, 203, ¶ 28 (App. 2014). | 4 | 4 |
Valento v. Valentogreen2 sentences2025“We will uphold the court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous or unsupported by any credible evidence.” Valento, 225 Ariz. at 481, ¶ 11 . ¶26 The decree makes clear that the court considered all evidence relevant to the parties’ reasonable financial needs, methodically addressing the evidentiary support for each of the thirteen factors set forth in Section 25-319(B)—including, importantly, the one factor Wife challenges. 2025“We will uphold the court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous or unsupported by any credible evidence.” Valento, 225 Ariz. at 481, ¶ 11 . ¶26 The decree makes clear that the court considered all evidence relevant to the parties’ reasonable financial needs, methodically addressing the evidentiary support for each of the thirteen factors set forth in Section 25-319(B)—including, importantly, the one factor Wife challenges. | 1 | 1 |
Porter v. Portergreen2 sentences2015See Porter v. Porter, 21 Ariz. App. 300, 302 , 518 P.2d 1017, 1019 (1974) (in deciding child custody issues, “[t]he trial court is given broad discretion in determining what will be the most beneficial for the child[ ], . . . and it is in the best position to determine what is in the child[ ]'s interest”). 2015See Porter v. Porter, 21 Ariz. App. 300, 302 , 518 P.2d 1017, 1019 (1974) (in deciding child custody issues, “[t]he trial court is given broad discretion in determining what will be the most beneficial for the child[ ], . . . and it is in the best position to determine what is in the child[ ]'s interest”). | 1 | 1 |
Rainwater v. Rainwatergreen2 sentences2014An order for payment of spousal maintenance should promote a transition to financial independence for the receiving spouse while allowing a “reasonable approximation of the standard of living established during the marriage.” Rainwater v. Rainwater, 177 Ariz. 500, 503 , 869 P.2d 176, 179 (App.1993) (internal citation omitted). 2014An order for payment of spousal maintenance should promote a transition to financial independence for the receiving spouse while allowing a “reasonable approximation of the standard of living established during the marriage.” Rainwater v. Rainwater, 177 Ariz. 500, 503 , 869 P.2d 176, 179 (App.1993) (internal citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Marriage of Hinkstongreen2 sentences2010The decree of dissolution indicates the family court did consider those factors. “[B]ecause the trial judge is in the best position to properly tailor an award of spousal maintenance, the trial court is given broad discretion to determine what is a reasonable amount.” In re Marriage of Hinkston, 133 Ariz. 592, 593 , 653 P.2d 49, 50 (App.1982) (citations omitted). 2010The decree of dissolution indicates the family court did consider those factors. “[B]ecause the trial judge is in the best position to properly tailor an award of spousal maintenance, the trial court is given broad discretion to determine what is a reasonable amount.” In re Marriage of Hinkston, 133 Ariz. 592, 593 , 653 P.2d 49, 50 (App.1982) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.