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.
5 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Willie G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Securitygreen2 sentences2018Ct. 66(D)(2); see also Manuel M. v. ADES, 218 Ariz. 205, 211, ¶ 19 (App. 2008); see also Willie G. v. ADES, 211 Ariz. 231, 234, ¶¶ 14-17 (App. 2005) (the court did not abuse its discretion when it required parents to appear in person for a contested dependency hearing when parents voluntarily departed Arizona and argued that “extremely limited financial resources” prevented them from returning for the hearing). 1 Mother did not file an answering brief, which could be construed as a confession of error. 2017See Willie G., 211 Ariz. at 234 , ¶¶ 14–17 (the court did not abuse its discretion when it required parents to appear in person for a contested dependency hearing when parents voluntarily departed Arizona and argued that “extremely limited financial resources” prevented them from returning for the hearing). | 3 | 3 |
Ruben M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Securitygreen1 sentence2021Decision of the Court (App. 2007), but its findings must include all of the “ultimate facts,” Ruben M., 230 Ariz. at 241, ¶ 25 . ¶29 This case proceeded as both a contested dependency hearing and severance trial. | 1 | 1 |
Manuel M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Securitygreen1 sentence2018Ct. 66(D)(2); see also Manuel M. v. ADES, 218 Ariz. 205, 211, ¶ 19 (App. 2008); see also Willie G. v. ADES, 211 Ariz. 231, 234, ¶¶ 14-17 (App. 2005) (the court did not abuse its discretion when it required parents to appear in person for a contested dependency hearing when parents voluntarily departed Arizona and argued that “extremely limited financial resources” prevented them from returning for the hearing). 1 Mother did not file an answering brief, which could be construed as a confession of error. | 1 | 1 |
Acuna v. Kroackgreen2 sentences2015Eng’g, Inc., 229 Ariz. 25, 28, ¶ 6 , 270 P.3d 852, 855 (App. 2011) (citations omitted); Acuna v. Kroack, 212 Ariz. 104, 111, ¶ 24 , 128 P.3d 221, 228 (App. 2006). ¶18 Additionally, we review a juvenile court’s ultimate ruling in a contested dependency hearing for an abuse of discretion. 2015Eng’g, Inc., 229 Ariz. 25, 28, ¶ 6 , 270 P.3d 852, 855 (App. 2011) (citations omitted); Acuna v. Kroack, 212 Ariz. 104, 111, ¶ 24 , 128 P.3d 221, 228 (App. 2006). ¶18 Additionally, we review a juvenile court’s ultimate ruling in a contested dependency hearing for an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
Goodman v. Physical Resource Engineering, Inc.green2 sentences2015Eng’g, Inc., 229 Ariz. 25, 28, ¶ 6 , 270 P.3d 852, 855 (App. 2011) (citations omitted); Acuna v. Kroack, 212 Ariz. 104, 111, ¶ 24 , 128 P.3d 221, 228 (App. 2006). ¶18 Additionally, we review a juvenile court’s ultimate ruling in a contested dependency hearing for an abuse of discretion. 2015Eng’g, Inc., 229 Ariz. 25, 28, ¶ 6 , 270 P.3d 852, 855 (App. 2011) (citations omitted); Acuna v. Kroack, 212 Ariz. 104, 111, ¶ 24 , 128 P.3d 221, 228 (App. 2006). ¶18 Additionally, we review a juvenile court’s ultimate ruling in a contested dependency hearing for an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-74449Agreen2 sentences1986In re Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-74349A, 20 Ariz.App. 249, 251 , 511 P.2d 693, 695 (1973). 1986In re Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-74349A, 20 Ariz.App. 249, 251 , 511 P.2d 693, 695 (1973). | 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.