Legal Opinion

Olsztyn v. Olsztyn

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided October 2, 1973No. 1 CA-CIV 1874, 1 CA-CIV 2140PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

EUBANK, Presiding Judge.

These two appeals, 1 CA-CIV 1874 and 1 CA-CIV 2140, were consolidated on appeal since both cases arise from the same divorce action and concern the same parties. The trial was bifurcated by stipulation of the parties and consent of the trial court. 1 CA-CIV 1874 involved the issue of child custody, while 1 CA-CIV 2140 involved the issues of divorce and alimony. 1 We will consider each appeal separately.

1 CA-CIV 1874

This appeal by the appellant-wife is from an amended judgment filed on Sep tember 27, 1971, granting the appellee-husband custody of their three…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. McFadden v. McFaddenArizona Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Ward v. WardArizona Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Kingsbery v. KingsberyArizona Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Burkhardt v. BurkhardtArizona Supreme Court · 1973
  5. Bemis v. BemisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Lone Wolf v. Lone WolfAlaska Supreme Court · 1987
  2. In the Matter of J. C. Catlow, Debtor. Lawrence J. Marks, Individually and on Behalf of Wendy Kay Hall v. J. C. CatlowCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
  3. Edsall v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR COUNTY OF PIMAArizona Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Rosenblum v. PeralesAlaska Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Countryman v. CountrymanCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API