Cited by

.”); –24 (App. 2005) (“Factual findings are not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports them, and substantial evidence is evidence which would permit a reasonable person to reach the trial court’s result.”) (citation modified).

¶13 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the judgment, Bennett v. Baxter Grp., Inc., ¶ 2 (App. 2010), and will accept the court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous or not supported by substantial evidence, -24, ¶ 18 (App. 2005).

(“We will accept the court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.”); (“Factual findings ‘are not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports them,’ and ‘[s]ubstantial evidence is evidence which would permit a reasonable person to reach the trial court’s result.’” (alteration in Davis) (quoting In re $26,980 U.S. Currency, )).

at 52, ¶ 11 ( ¶ 18 (App. 2005)).

Evidence is substantial if it permits “a reasonable person to reach the trial court’s result.” ¶ 18 (App. 2005) (citation omitted).

Evidence is substantial if “a reasonable person [could] reach the trial court’s result.” –24, ¶ 18 (App. 2005) (quoting In re U.S. Currency in the Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 9 (App. 2000)).

at 52, ¶ 11 ( ¶ 18 (App. 2005)).

“Factual findings are not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports them[.]” ¶ 18 (App. 2005) (internal quotations omitted).

at ¶ 11 (quoting Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 (App. 2003), ¶ 18 (App. 2005)).

Evidence is substantial if it allows “a reasonable person to reach the [jury’s] result.” ¶ 11 (App. 2009)( ¶ 18 (App. 2005)).

¶ 18, (substantial evidence is evidence that allows a reasonable person to reach the superior court’s results) (quotations and citations omitted).

he definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed’”), quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); -01 (App. 2009) (finding of fact clearly erroneous if unsupported by such substantial evidence as would allow “‘a reasonable person to reach the trial court’s result’”), cf. Morgan, 13 Ariz. App. at 195, 475 P.2d at 287 (finding supported by “no evidence” clearly erroneous).

(findings clearly erroneous if they lack evidence that “‘permit[s] a reasonable person to reach the trial court’s result’”), quoting In re United States Currency in the Amount of $26,980.00

Evidence is substantial if it allows “a reasonable person to reach the trial court’s result.” ¶ 18

at 151, ¶ 9 , 150 P.3d at 238 ; ¶6 , Corbett, 213 Ariz. at 629, ¶ 34 , 146 P.3d at 1038 ; ¶ 19

Evidence is substantial if it allows “a reasonable person to reach the trial court’s result.” ¶ 18 , (quoting In re U.S. Currency in the Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 9 , ).

However, the trial court’s “factual findings must be accepted on appeal unless they are ‘clearly erroneous.’ ” ¶ 18 , (quotation omitted).

e legislature intended to provide elderly population greater protection than already provided under other civil remedies, and APSA claims and medical malpractice claims are not mutually exclusive); Denton, 190 Ariz. at 155-56 , 945 P.2d at 1286-87 (holding representative of victim of elder abuse may recover damages for victim’s pain and suffering notwithstanding death of victim); ¶ 32 , (caretaker of vulnerable adult violates the APSA by failing to act for the vulnerable adult’s benefit to the s

he legislature was concerned about elder abuse.” In re Guardianship/Conservatorship of Denton, see also McGill, ¶ 6, 57 P.3d at 387 (“[T]he statute was intended to increase the remedies available to and for elderly people who had been harmed by their caregivers.”); Davis v. Zlatos, 211 Ariz. 519, ¶ 19