Cited by

& ¶ 19 (App. 2004) (citation modified).

& ¶ 33 (App. 2004); ¶ 14 (App. 2013) (explaining the question is whether the court reached its decision without exceeding the bounds of reason, given the law and circumstances).

& see also Sorensen v. Farmers Ins.

& (“We defer to the trial court with respect to any factual findings explicitly or implicitly made, affirming them so long as they are not clearly erroneous .

& ¶ 10 (App. 2004), quoting Twin City Fire Ins.

& ¶ 33 (App. 2004) (“We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion and generally affirm a trial court’s admission or exclusion of evidence absent a clear abuse or legal error and resulting prejudice.”) (emphasis added); Ariz. R. Fam.

& ¶ 10 (App. 2004) (“We defer to the trial court with respect to any factual findings explicitly or implicitly made, affirming them so long as they are not clearly erroneous, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists.”).

& ¶ 39 (App. 2004) (as amended).

& ¶ 19 (App. 2004) (“[I]n cases that have gone to trial, a party who wants to preserve a summary-judgment issue for appeal, with a possible exception for a purely legal issue, must do so by reasserting it in a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law or other post-trial motion.”).

& ¶ 33 (App. 2004) (citing Yauch v. S. Pac.

& 545, ¶¶ 39, 44 (App. 2004).