⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

9 opinions for “United States v. Duwyenie”

Duwyenie v. Moranpublic domain
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2009-02-11 · Published · cited 9× · 207 P.3d 754; 220 Ariz. 501; 2009 Ariz. App. LEXIS 17
207 P.3d 754 (2009) Antanelle DUWYENIE, Petitioner/Appellee, v. William C. MORAN, Respondent/Appellant. No. 2 CA-CV 2008-0101. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2, Department B. February 11, 2009. *755 The Cavanagh Law Firm, P.A. By Scott A. Salmon and Christopher Robbins, Phoenix, Attorneys for Petitioner/Appellee. Er
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2009-02-11 · Published · cited 0×
FILED BY CLERK IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FEB 11 2009 STATE OF ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO DIVISION TWO ANTANELLE DUWYENIE, ) )
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2023-01-12 · Published · cited 0× · 523 P.3d 969; 87 Arizona Cases Digest 17
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE ROBERTO ANTONETTI, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE TRACEY WESTERHAUSEN, Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of Maricopa, Respondent Judge, ALISON MERCEDES KLINGER, Real Party in Interest. No. 1 CA-SA 22-0205
Mangan v. Manganpublic domain
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2011-05-26 · Published · cited 53× · 258 P.3d 164; 227 Ariz. 346; 609 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 49; 2011 Ariz. App. LEXIS 95
258 P.3d 164 (2011) In re the Marriage of Deborah J. MANGAN, Petitioner/Appellant, v. John V. MANGAN, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 10-0726 A. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department E. May 26, 2011. *165 Ariano & Reppucci, P.L.L.C. By Ryan M. Reppucci, Phoenix, Attorney for Petitioner/Appellant. Moshier
California Court of Appeal · 2013-04-26 · Published · cited 1× · 215 Cal. App. 4th 1121; 155 Cal. Rptr. 3d 746; 2013 WL 1780808; 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 331
Opinion MARGULIES, Acting P. J. The Alameda County Social Services Agency (the Agency) filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 300, subdivision (b) (section 300(b)) alleging the failure or inability of appellant Nelson B.’s parent or legal guardian to supervise or protect him a
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2016-05-27 · Published · cited 47× · 240 Ariz. 32; 375 P.3d 97; 2016 WL 3039622; 2016 Ariz. App. LEXIS 100
OPINION VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge: ¶ 1 Michele Ader appeals the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Estate of Dan Felger and his widow Carolyn Felger and its subsequent denial of her motion for a new trial. The primary issue presented in this appeal requires us to interpret A.R.S. § 14-3803 and A.R.S. § 14-3108 to determine whether Ader’s cl
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2009-05-28 · Published · cited 7× · 210 P.3d 1275; 221 Ariz. 104; 557 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 23; 2009 Ariz. App. LEXIS 94
210 P.3d 1275 (2009) Randall DOUGLAS and Elizabeth Douglas, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. GOVERNING BOARD OF WINDOW ROCK CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 8; Window Rock Consolidated School District No. 8, Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV 08-0481. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department A. May 28, 2009. *1277</
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2024-08-27 · Published · cited 0× · 557 P.3d 770
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE In the Matter of the Guardianship of: A.K., A Minor/Real Party in Interest. No. 1 CA-CV 23-0485 FILED 08-27-2024 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. JG512607 The Honorable Amanda S. Chua, Judge Pro Tempore (retired
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2016-04-22 · Published · cited 0× · 239 Ariz. 369; 372 P.3d 313; 737 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 20; 2016 WL 1621719; 2016 Ariz. App. LEXIS 72
OPINION STARING, Judge: ¶ 1 Mauricio Fernandez Margain appeals the denial of his petition for expedited enforcement of a child custody determination made in Mexico. Margain contends the trial court erred because Mexico has exclusive jurisdiction over the child at issue. We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to AR.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 25-106