Cited by

for example, the court of appeals considered whether a defendant’s statements describing the plaintiff as a “bigot,” “fascist,” and “homophobe,” made to a third party but within the plaintiff’s earshot, were “directed at” the plaintiff for purposes of Arizona’s civil harassment statute, A.R.S.

See, ¶¶ 2, 11-13, 24 (App. 2002) (analyzing A.R.S.

DISCUSSION ¶7 We review a court’s order granting an IAH for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 10 (App. 2002), which may occur if the court commits an error of law while reaching a discretionary conclusion or when the record lacks competent evidence to support the order, ¶ 14 (App. 2012).

¶ 16 (App. 2012); ¶ 10 (App. 2002) (stating that this court reviews an injunction against harassment for an abuse of discretion).

DISCUSSION ¶5 We review a ruling on an injunction against harassment for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 10 (App. 2002), and will affirm if “substantial evidence” supports the ruling, Prudential Ins.

¶ 21 (App. 2002) (“We attempt to construe statutes with ‘a reasonable and constitutional meaning’ whenever possible in order to remove potential doubts regarding the statute’s viability.”) ( ¶ 20 (App. 2001)).

See LaFaro v. Cahill , , ¶ 8, , 59 (App. 2002) (applying previous version of statute).

¶ 13 (App. 2001); ¶ 10 (App. 2002) (“The misapplication of the law to undisputed facts is an example of an abuse of discretion.”).

Cardoso, 230 Ariz. at 619, ¶ 16, 277 P.3d at 816; ¶ 10, (stating that this court reviews an injunction against harassment for an abuse of discretion).

- 85, ¶ 7, -59 (App. 2002) (stating that § 12-2101 “explicitly permits the appeal of injunctions”).

¶ 8 (App. 2002) (holding an injunction against harassment is a final order from which an appeal is “explicitly permit[ted]” by what is now A.R.S.