Cited by

DeLuna, 247 Ariz. at 423, ¶ 9; ¶ 19 (App. 2009).

See, ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (“Our duty on review does not include re-weighing conflicting evidence or redetermining the preponderance of the evidence.”).

¶ 4 (App. 2018) ( ¶ 19 (App. 2009).

“Even though conflicting evidence may exist, we affirm the [superior] court’s ruling if substantial evidence supports it.” ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

We do not reweigh evidence on appeal, and we “give due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses.”

¶ 20 (App. 2019) (noting we do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility on appeal); ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (noting the appellate court will affirm the superior court’s ruling if substantial evidence supports it, even if conflicting evidence exists).

¶ 16 (App. 2009); –56, ¶ 18 (App. 2004).

¶ 16 (App. 2009) (appellate court defers to trial court’s credibility determinations and the weight to give conflicting evidence); see also Aries v. Palmer Johnson, Inc., (trial court is not bound to accept the uncontradicted testimony of an interested party).

An abuse of discretion exists when the record is “devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.” ¶ 19 (App. 2009).

The court abuses its discretion if no evidence supports its decisions, Pridgeon v. Superior Court (LaMarca), or if it fails to make statutorily required findings, ¶ 11 (App. 2009).

in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion.” ¶ 19 (App. 2009) (cleaned up).

¶ 20 (App. 2019); ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

they are clearly erroneous,” ¶ 10 (App. 2022), we decline Father’s invitation to re-weigh the credibility of Mother’s testimony, (“An appellate court will not weigh the evidence” or “judge the credibility of the witnesses,” as those are “matter[s] within the province of the trier of fact.”); ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (“Our duty on review does not include re-weighing conflicting evidence” or judging “the credibility of the witnesses.”).

¶ 16 (App. 2009); ¶ 11 (App. 2011).

¶ 19 (App. 2009) (citations omitted).

in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion.” ¶ 19 (App. 2009) (cleaned up).