Cited by

¶ 16 (App. 2009) (citing cases).

is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.” ¶ 19 (App. 2009) (citations omitted).

“We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the family court’s findings, and we also determine whether evidence in the record reasonably supports the family court’s findings.” ¶ 17 (App. 2015); ¶¶ 16, 19 (App. 2009).

¶ 4 (App. 2018); ¶ 19 (App. 2009).

¶ 16 (App. 2009) (appellate court defers to the superior court’s weighing of conflicting evidence and judging of witness credibility).

See, ¶ 16 (App. 2009); ¶ 13 (1999).

An abuse of discretion occurs when the court commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary decision, ¶ 9 (App. 2019), or the record is “devoid of competent evidence to support the decision,” ¶ 4 (App. 2018) ( ¶ 19 (App. 2009)).

This court construes the evidence in a light most favorable to affirming the order, ¶ 14 (App. 2012) (citing cases), giving “due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses,” ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

¶ 13 (App. 1998); ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

“An abuse of discretion exists when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.” ¶ 19 (App. 2009) (citation omitted).

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).