DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hurd v. Hurd, 219 P.3d 258.

507 citing documents.

  • Luvisi v. Ellison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Rosenberg v. Conzoner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Rosenberg v. Conzoner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶ 19 (App. 2009) (citations omitted).
  • Rector v. Stevenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Rector v. Stevenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    We do not reweigh the evidence and “[w]e must give due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the 4 RECTOR v. STEVENSON Decision of the Court credibility of the witnesses.” ¶ 16 (App. 2009).
  • Schwartzkopf v. Schwartzkopf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Schwartzkopf v. Schwartzkopf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Dineyazhe v. Onco-Ingyadet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Dineyazhe v. Onco-Ingyadet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Andrews v. Andrews 504 P.3d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Andrews v. Andrews 504 P.3d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶10 To the extent Father asks that we reweigh the evidence, we may not do so on appeal, ¶ 16 (App. 2009), and realistically cannot do so without a transcript, see Romero v. Sw.
  • Purdy v. Purdy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Purdy v. Purdy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶ 16 (App. 2009) ( ¶ 13, 580 ¶ 18 (1999)).
  • Ali v. Elsied Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Kitchel v. Kitchel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Kitchel v. Kitchel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶ 14 (App. 2017); ¶ 16 (App. 2009).
  • Ali v. Elsied Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (“Our duty on review does not include re-weighing conflicting evidence or redetermining the preponderance of the evidence.”).
  • Morrison v. Morrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Nackard v. Nackard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Aguilar v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Gagnon v. Greene Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Nackard v. Nackard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    In conducting our review, we “defer to the [superior] court’s determination of witnesses’ credibility and the weight to give conflicting evidence.” ¶ 13 (App. 1998); ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (“Even though conflicting evidence may exist, we affirm the [superior] court’s ruling if substantial evidence supports it.”).
  • Morrison v. Morrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Aguilar v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Gagnon v. Greene Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (“Our duty on review does not include re-weighing conflicting evidence or redetermining the preponderance of the evidence.”).
  • Williams v. Jiminez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Williams v. Jiminez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    We do not reweigh evidence on appeal, ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (citation omitted), and the party who initially sought the protective order has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it should remain in effect.
  • Lemay v. Lemay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Lemay v. Lemay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Moreover, to the extent his due process argument asks that we reweigh the evidence, we do not do so on appeal, ¶ 16 (App. 2009), and realistically cannot do so without a transcript, see Romero v. Sw.
  • Nardini-Smith v. Jolly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Nardini-Smith v. Jolly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶ 19 (App. 2009) (citations omitted).
  • Wiltbank v. Wiltbank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Wiltbank v. Wiltbank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Schritter v. Schritter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Schritter v. Schritter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (citation omitted) (“Our duty on review does not include re-weighing conflicting evidence or redetermining the preponderance of the evidence.”).
  • Ruinard, Jr. v. Scroggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Ruinard, Jr. v. Scroggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶12 We will affirm if substantial evidence supports the court’s decision, ¶ 16 (App. 2009), and will not substitute our opinion for that of the superior court unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion
  • Principe v. Blevins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Principe v. Blevins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Cordero v. Hazlitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Cordero v. Hazlitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ANALYSIS I. Standard of Review and Applicable Law ¶22 We will affirm if substantial evidence supports the court’s decision, ¶ 16 (App. 2009), and will not substitute our opinion for that of the superior court unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion
  • Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶ 19 (App. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
  • Mario B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Mario B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶ 16 (App. 2009).2 CONCLUSION ¶20 For these reasons, we affirm.
  • Ratliff v. Billingsley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Ratliff v. Billingsley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    § 25–403(B); ¶ 20 (App. 2009); ¶ 9 (App. 2003).
  • Rector v. Stevenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021