Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez, 213 P.3d 197.

140 citing documents.

Sanford v. Dna Investments Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sanford v. Dna Investments Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tms v. Zachariah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tms v. Zachariah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Florence v. Florence Copper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Florence v. Florence Copper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 11 (App. 2009) (this court “giv[es] due 9 FLORENCE v. FLORENCE COPPER Opinion of the Court regard to the opportunity of the [superior] court to judge the credibility of witnesses”).
Sandoval v. Oxford Financial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sandoval v. Oxford Financial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Castro 9 ¶ 12 (App. 2009).
State v. Series Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Series Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
–52, ¶¶ 11–12 (App. 2009).
Clark v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Clark v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Imh v. Beck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Imh v. Beck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Parmeley v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Parmeley v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Hinton v. Hinton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Hinton v. Hinton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 11 (App. 2009) (“We will not reweigh the evidence or substitute our evaluation of the facts.”).
E&M Services v. A&N Services Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
E&M Services v. A&N Services Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
–52, ¶¶ 11–12 (App. 2009).
Keith R. v. Dcs, A.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Keith R. v. Dcs, A.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 11 (App. 2009) (Court of Appeals “will not reweigh the evidence or substitute [its] evaluation of the facts.”).
Nathan T. v. Dcs, J.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Krystle M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Nathan T. v. Dcs, J.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 11 (App. 2009) (court of appeals “will not reweigh the evidence or substitute [its] evaluation of the facts”).
Krystle M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Hart v. Biederbeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Quintana-Suarez v. Cazares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Quintana-Suarez v. Cazares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Hart v. Biederbeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 11 (App. 2009) (citation omitted).
Symons v. Pjo Insurance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Symons v. Pjo Insurance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Evidence is substantial if it allows “a reasonable person to reach the [jury’s] result.” ¶ 11 (App. 2009) (citation omitted).
State v. All Out Now Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. All Out Now Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Garner v. Daurio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Garner v. Daurio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists.” -52, ¶ 11 (App. 2009) (quotation omitted).
Gonzalez, Jr. v. moraga/alba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Gonzalez, Jr. v. moraga/alba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Spanish Hills v. Wollner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Spanish Hills v. Wollner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-52, ¶ 11 (App. 2009) ( ¶ 9 (App. 2003)).
Otto v. Otto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Otto v. Otto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 11 (App. 2009) (citation omitted).
Moirbia v. Bonnett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Moirbia v. Bonnett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 11 (App. 2009) (quotation omitted).
10k LLC v. Wvsv Holdings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
10k LLC v. Wvsv Holdings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 16 (App. 2010); -52, ¶ 11 (2009).
State v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
None of the factors presented in Old West are dispositive or require a court to exonerate a bond, see id., and this court will not substitute its judgment for that of the superior court on these discretionary factors, ¶ 11 (App. 2009).
State v. Adept Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Adept Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 11 (App. 2009); (a difference in judicial opinion is not synonymous with an abuse of discretion).