Cited by

See ARFLP 1, cmt.; -69, ¶ 13, -07 (App. 2009).

at 312, ¶ 15 (citing United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 572 (1989), ¶ 35 (App. 2009)).

Moreover, when we do not have a transcript on appeal “the reviewing court assumes that the record supports the trial court’s decision.” ¶ 33, (citations omitted).

¶ 33, (holding that “[w]hen no transcript is provided on appeal, the reviewing court assumes that the record supports the trial court’s decision”).

¶11, P.3d 902, 906 (App. 2009) (citations omitted).

¶ 7, (reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion de novo); -69, ¶ 13, - 07 (App. 2009) (noting that law interpreting other statewide rules is applicable when “the language of the family law rules is substantially the same”).

Cf. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 572 (1989) (requiring a threshold showing to be made before the court could perform in camera review to determine whether the crime-fraud exception to the privilege applies); Kline v. Kline, 221 Ariz. 564, 573 ¶ 35, (holding that a party must present prima facie evidence to invoke the crime-fraud exception).

2099 (“[A]n individual may submit to the jurisdiction of the court by appearance.”); ¶ 18 , (“In Arizona, an ‘appearance’ for purposes of the rules is synonymous with a ‘general appearance.’ A party has made a general appearance when he has taken any action, other than objecting to personal jurisdiction, that recognizes the case is pending in court.” (footnote and ci

to put the defendant on notice’ that punitive damages may be awarded.” ¶ 29 , (quoting Tarnoff, 17 Ariz. App. at 245 , 497 P.2d at 65 ).

3 ¶ 33, (reviewing court assumes the record supports the trial court’s decision when no transcripts have been provided on appeal).

569 n.4, , 907 n.4 (App.2009).