Cited by

¶15 Father also argues that Mother should be sanctioned under ARCAP 25 because both her briefing and her case management statement misrepresent the facts in violation of ARCAP 13.

P. 11(a), (b); –54 ¶¶ 29–32 (App. 2011) (sanctioning counsel for misrepresenting the record and relying on inappropriate legal authorities); In re Matter of Washburn v. Houston, 2026 WL 16825, at *4 ¶ 31(Ariz. App. Jan.

P. 11(b); –54 ¶¶ 29–32 (App. 2011) (sanctioning counsel for misrepresenting the record and relying on inappropriate legal authorities).

P. 11(b); -54, ¶¶ 29-32 (App. 2011) (sanctioning counsel for misrepresenting the record and relying on inappropriate legal authorities).

–47 (App. 1978); ¶ 26 (App. 2011).

-53 ¶¶ 25-28 (App. 2011).

P. 11(a); -54, ¶¶ 29-32 (App. 2011) 7 WASHBURN v. HOUSTON Decision of the Court (sanctioning counsel for misrepresenting the record and relying on inappropriate legal authorities).

P. 11(a); –54, ¶¶ 29–32 (App. 2011) (sanctioning counsel for misrepresenting the record and relying on inappropriate legal authorities).

See, e.g., City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409, 436 (2015) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (referring to “prostitution of underage girls”); ¶ 11 (App. 2018) (addressing child prostitution statute); ¶ 10 (App. 2011) (noting “illegal pornography sites that appeared to depict violence against underage girls”); ¶ 27 (App. 2008) (referencing “underage girls” in the context of the crime of sexual conduct with a minor).

(modification); ¶ 26 (App. 2011) (fees).

¶ 6 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 26 (App. 2011)).

See Mangan v. Mangan , , ¶ 26