Cited by

Substantial evidence is “any relevant evidence from which a reasonable mind might draw a conclusion.” ¶ 12 (App. 2003) (citation omitted).

¶2 We hold today that Arizona law recognizes a cause of action for boundary by acquiescence, ¶ 13 (App. 2003), with the additional element that the actual boundary is uncertain or disputed.

“Substantial evidence is any relevant evidence from which a reasonable mind might draw a conclusion.” ¶ 12 (App. 2003) (cleaned up).

To prove a boundary by acquiescence, the claimant must establish “(1) occupation or possession of property up to a clearly defined line, (2) mutual acquiescence by the adjoining landowners in that line as the dividing line between their properties, and (3) continued acquiescence for a long period of time.” ¶ 13 (App. 2003).

Such remittitur is proper “only for the most cogent of reasons, such as lack of evidence supporting the damages awarded.” Id.; ¶ 14 (App. 2011) (noting that “a clear indication that the jury misapplied the principles governing damages” may be a proper basis for remittitur); ¶ 12 (App. 2003) (noting that “substantial evidence” sufficient to support a verdict is evidence that would permit a reasonable person to reach that result).

Desiree S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7 (App. 2014); ¶ 12 (App. 2003) (stating that substantial evidence is any relevant evidence that allows a reasonable mind to draw the same conclusion).

“Substantial evidence is any relevant evidence from which a reasonable mind might draw a conclusion.” ¶ 12 (App. 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted); ¶ 13 (1999).

“Substantial evidence is any relevant evidence from which a reasonable mind might draw a conclusion.” ¶ 12 (App. 2003) (citation omitted).

“‘Substantial evidence’ is ‘any relevant evidence from which a reasonable mind might draw a conclusion.’” ¶ 12 (App. 2003) (quoting Troutman v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Arizona, ).

at ¶ 4 (citation omitted); see Desiree S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7, ¶ 12

A determination is clearly erroneous if it is unsupported by “any relevant evidence from which a reasonable mind might draw a conclusion.” ¶ 12, (citation omitted).

See Desiree S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7, ¶ 12

A termination order is clearly erroneous if it is “unsupported by substantial evidence.” Desiree S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7, ¶ 12, (“Substantial evidence is any relevant evidence from which a reasonable mind might draw a conclusion.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

A determination is clearly erroneous if it is “unsupported by substantial evidence.” Desiree S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7, ¶ 12, (“Substantial evidence is any relevant evidence from which a reasonable mind might draw a conclusion.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

if there is not substantial evidence in the record to justify it.” ¶ 12

Sec., ¶ 13, ( ¶ 12, (stating that substantial evidence is any relevant evidence that allows a reasonable person to reach the same conclusion as the fact-finder)).

“Substantial evidence is any relevant evidence from which a reasonable mind might draw a conclusion.” ¶ 12 , (internal quotations and citations omitted).

P.3d 892 (App. 2003); Callender; P.2d 107 (App. 1989).

Callender; Hamilton v. Municipal Court of *82 City of Mesa

2 ¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict, the following facts were presented below and are not challenged by the state.