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.
6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Backstrand v. Backstrandgreen2 sentences2024Amadore v. Lifgren, 245 Ariz. 509 , 513, ¶ 5 (App. 2018). 3 REEVES v. REEVES Decision of the Court A. Evidence supports that a change in circumstance materially affected Child’s welfare. ¶10 To modify parents’ legal decision making and parenting time, “the superior court must engage in a two-stage inquiry.” Backstrand v. Backstrand, 250 Ariz. 339, 343, ¶ 14 (App. 2020).. 2024Amadore v. Lifgren, 245 Ariz. 509 , 513, ¶ 5 (App. 2018). 3 REEVES v. REEVES Decision of the Court A. Evidence supports that a change in circumstance materially affected Child’s welfare. ¶10 To modify parents’ legal decision making and parenting time, “the superior court must engage in a two-stage inquiry.” Backstrand v. Backstrand, 250 Ariz. 339, 343, ¶ 14 (App. 2020). | 4 | 4 |
Black v. Blackgreen2 sentences2024“First, the court must ascertain whether there has been a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child.” Id. (quoting Black v. Black, 114 Ariz. 282, 283 (1977)). 2024“First, the court must ascertain whether there has been a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child.” Id. (quoting Black v. Black, 114 Ariz. 282, 283 (1977)). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Maloof v. Raper Sales, Inc.
green
2 sentences1979Maloof v. Raper Sales, Inc., 113 Ariz. 485 , 557 P.2d 522 (1976); 16 A.R.S. 1979Maloof v. Raper Sales, Inc., 113 Ariz. 485 , 557 P.2d 522 (1976); 16 A.R.S. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Gordon v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1975The two-stage hearing was conducted prior to the 15 April 1975 opinion of this Court in the case of Gordon v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona, 23 Ariz. App. 457 , 533 P.2d 1194 , in which this Court at 23 Ariz.App. page 460 and at 533 P.2d page 1197, sanctioned and urged the use of offers of proof in workmen’s compensation matters. 1975The two-stage hearing was conducted prior to the 15 April 1975 opinion of this Court in the case of Gordon v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona, 23 Ariz. App. 457 , 533 P.2d 1194 , in which this Court at 23 Ariz.App. page 460 and at 533 P.2d page 1197, sanctioned and urged the use of offers of proof in workmen’s compensation matters. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.