Cited by

¶ 11 (App. 2009); see also Ariz. R. Civ.

See Birth Hope Adoption Agency, ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

¶ 11 (App. 2009) (citing Choisser v. State ex rel.

¶ 17 (App. 2009) (“The superior court was not required to accept and examine evidence presented to it for the first time in connection with [a] motion for reconsideration.”).

¶ 16 (App. 2009) (quoting Torres v. N. Am.

On this record, the 13 SEIDMAN, et al. v. WEILER, et al. Decision of the Court court’s decision was not “manifestly unreasonable.” ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

“An adverse party who fails to respond [to a motion for summary judgment] does so at his peril because uncontroverted evidence favorable to the movant, and from which only one inference can be drawn, will be presumed to be true.” ¶ 11 (App. 2009) (quoting Choisser v. State ex rel.

¶ 16 (App. 2009) (motions to reconsider); ¶ 21 (App. 2005) (Rule 60 motions).

We review rulings under Rule 7.1 for abuse of discretion, ¶ 17 (App. 2004), which is discretion that is “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons,” ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

“‘Abuse of discretion’ is discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.” ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

An “‘[a]buse of discretion’ is discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.” ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

Cullison, 120 Ariz. at 167, n.1; ¶ 10 (App. 2009).

¶ 19, (citation omitted).

P. 56(e)(4); ¶ 11 (App. 2009) (“[U]ncontroverted evidence favorable to the movant, and from 3 Fortiff argues it disclosed its Declaration-based defenses in its answer by denying the assessments “were established and imposed .

¶ 19, (citation omitted).