Pulliam v. Pulliam

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that because the party never requested relief from the stipulation, “the trial court was never given any opportunity to rule” and no error resulted
• observing counsel may stipulate to procedural, evidentiary matters such as the admission of evidence and the law favors stipulations “because they reduce the time of trial and narrow the issues”
• observing “counsel may stipulate as to evidentiary matters such as the admission . . . of evidence” however “[a] party to an action cannot stipulate to one thing and then later change her mind and withdraw her consent”
• “[Parties] may stipulate as to evidentiary matters such as the admission, exclusion or withdrawal of evidence from consideration.”
• “[C]ounsel may stipulate as to evidentiary matters such as the admission, exclusion or withdrawal of evidence from consideration.”
• “A party to an action cannot stipulate to one thing and then later change her mind and withdraw her consent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Elia v. Pifer
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1998-09-03· cited 41×
• Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1985-05-23· cited 25×
• Garn v. Garn
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1987-06-25· cited 17×
• GOVUVEIA v. GRULER
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2026-04-15

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Bearman v. Camatsos
  Tennessee Supreme Court· 1964-12-11· cited 67×
• Al Burstein and Violet R. Burstein, Co-Partners Doing Business as Braeburn Company v. United States
  Eighth Circuit· 1956-04-19· cited 42×
• Foote v. Maryland Casualty Co.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1962-11-28· cited 26×
• Hayes v. State
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1969-04-30· cited 25×
• Vernon I. Marden v. The International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers, an Unincorporated Association
  Fifth Circuit· 1978-07-12· cited 19×
• Harsh Building Company v. Bialac
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1975-01-07· cited 15×
• Eisenson v. Eisenson
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 1965-11-01· cited 13×
• Second Baptist Church v. Mount Zion Baptist Church
  Nevada Supreme Court· 1970-03-11· cited 13×
• Industrial Park Corp. v. U. S. I. F. Palo Verde Corp.
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1973-03-15· cited 12×
• State v. Sorrell
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1973-02-26· cited 11×
• Ward v. Ward
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1962-06-06· cited 6×
• Pulliam v. Pulliam
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1984-02-23· cited 1×