Cited by

Even if a different court might have reached the opposite conclusion, we cannot find an abuse of discretion unless “the lower court exceeded the bounds of reason by performing the challenged act.”

¶21 We recognize that in Toy v. Katz, the court of appeals stated, in a footnote lacking authority, that the 1996 amendment to Rule 4(i) did “not affect its substance.” n.1 (App. 1997).

See, (“[T]here is no requirement of privity in tort actions for professional negligence.”); Mur-Ray Mgmt.

Toy v. Katz , , 83, , 1031 (App. 1997).

The trial court abuses its discretion only where it "exceed[s] the bounds of reason," Toy v. Katz , , 83, , 1031 (App. 1997), or in exercising its discretion, commits an error of law, , 451, ¶ 13, , 708 (App. 2007).

¶12 We review the trial court’s grant of the motion to dismiss for abuse of discretion, which occurs when the court’s determination “exceeded the bounds of reason.” ¶ 14 (App. 2011) (holding that we review a dismissal pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ.

Englert, 13 P.3d at 769 (we will affirm trial court’s decision if it did not “‘exceed[] the bounds of reason by performing the challenged act’”), (alteration in Englert).

[Rule 6(f)] motion to dismiss”); (stating that the standard of review for a denial of a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of 1 We cite to the current version of the statute unless otherwise noted.

(holding that legal malpractice claim against attorney who advised sellers in business-sale transaction did not accrue until sellers learned they could not enforce the contract); Comm.

¶ 14 , the Toys sued Katz, their former attorney, for legal malpractice.

See, , (discussing differences between the standing and real party in interest rules).

In determining whether a trial court abused its discretion, “we must determine not whether we might have so acted under the circumstances, but whether the lower court exceeded the bounds of reason by performing the challenged act.”

¶9 n.1, n.1 (App. 1997), Division One of this court stated in dicta the 1996 amendment did “not affect [the rule’s] substance.” But we question that dicta in view of the amended language of the rule itself and the amendment’s purpose, which was “to bring various provisions in the Arizona Rules

Even if another court might have ruled differently, 961 we cannot say the juvenile court abused its discretion by insisting that Bonnie and Willie attend the dependency hearing in person.

Even if another court might have ruled differently, , we cannot say the juvenile court abused its discretion by insisting that Bonnie and Willie attend the dependency hearing in person.

Van Lines, Inc., , ¶ 14 , (reasoning it would “affirm the trial court’s decision if it did not ‘exceed[ ] the bounds of reason by performing the challenged act.’ ” ( , )).

Even if we would have acted differently under the same circumstances, we nevertheless will affirm the trial court’s decision if it did not “exeeed[ ] the bounds of reason by performing the challenged act.” , , (“A difference in judicial opinion is not synonymous with ‘abuse of discretion.’ ”).