Cited by

“A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion or ‘when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.’” ¶ 10 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 14 (App. 2012)).

¶9 those cases do not support Tovar’s argument that courts should conduct an “endangerment analysis” when making a section 13-910 determination.

¶ 9 (App. 2014); Bulova Watch Co. v. Super City Dep’t Stores of Ariz., Inc.

at ¶ 17; ¶ 10 (App. 2014).

¶ 10 (App. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

DISCUSSION ¶8 We review an order of protection for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 10 (App. 2014), and review evidentiary rulings for a clear abuse of discretion and substantial prejudice, Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young

Viewing the facts “in the light most favorable to upholding the [superior] court’s decision,” we will reverse only if the record “is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.” ¶ 10 (App. 2014) (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION ¶8 We review the order of protection for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 10 (App. 2014), and the evidentiary rulings are reviewed for a clear abuse of discretion and substantial prejudice, Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young

We will reverse only if “the record, when viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.” ¶ 10 (App. 2014).

¶ 11 (App. 2014) (“[G]ranting an order of protection when the allegations fail to include a statutorily enumerated offense constitutes error by the court.”); see A.R.S.

an injunction.'" Id.; -59, ¶¶ 5, 7-8 (App. 2014) (finding a final order of protection containing a firearm prohibition appealable under A.R.S.

§ 13- 3602(G)(4); ¶ 20 (App. 2014).