Cited by

¶ 8 n.1 (App. 2005) ( ).

und, (“[T]his court must assume the trial court found every controverted issue of fact necessary to sustain the judgment and, if there is reasonable evidence to support such 11 CELAYA v. RIVERO QUINTEROS Opinion of the Court findings, hold that it did so correctly.”)

by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant must include in the record transcripts of all proceedings containing evidence relevant to that judgment, finding or conclusion.”); ¶ 33 (App. 2009) (“When no transcript is provided on appeal, the reviewing court assumes that the record supports the trial court’s decision.”) ( ¶ 11 (App. 1998)).

“[W]e may infer additional findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to sustain the [superior] court’s order as long as those findings are reasonably supported by the evidence, and not in conflict with any express findings.” ¶ 11 (App. 1998).

Because she failed to do so, we presume the record supports the jury’s verdicts and each decision the court 3 HUNTER, et al. v. BARNA Decision of the Court made at trial.1 ¶ 11 (App. 1998) (“When no transcript is provided on appeal, the reviewing court assumes that the record supports the [superior] court’s decision.”).

But “rules and statutes should be harmonized wherever possible 4 MARICOPA et al. v. HON AINLEY et al. Decision of the Court and read in conjunction with each other.” ¶ 8 n.4 (App. 1998) (citations omitted).

¶ 11 (App. 1998) (“When no transcript is provided on appeal, the reviewing court assumes that the record supports the trial court’s decision.”) L.C.

“When no transcript is provided on appeal, the reviewing court assumes that the record supports the trial court’s decision.” ¶ 33 (App. 2009) ( ¶ 11 (App. 1998)).

¶ 11 (App. 1998) (explaining an appellate court may infer additional findings of fact and conclusions of law necessary to uphold the decree if they are reasonably supported by the evidence and do not conflict with express findings).

We may only infer findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the trial court’s order if “those findings are reasonably supported by the evidence.” ¶ 11 (App. 1998).

And “[w]hen no transcript is provided on appeal, the reviewing court assumes that the record supports the trial court’s decision.” ¶ 33 (App. 2009) ( ¶ 11 (App. 1998)).

“When the order provides no legal basis, we review the decision to see if it is supported by any reasonable legal basis.” ¶ 10 (App. 1998).

¶ 11 (App. 1998); John C. Lincoln Hosp.

¶ 11 (App. 1998) (appellate court may infer additional findings of fact and conclusions of law necessary to uphold the decree if they are reasonably supported by the evidence and do not conflict with express findings).

Although the superior court did not make an explicit finding that failure to disclose the DE Policy caused no prejudice or order otherwise for good cause, “we may infer additional findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to sustain the trial court’s order as long as those findings are reasonably supported by the evidence, and not in conflict with any express findings.” ¶ 11 (App. 1998).

¶ 11 (App. 1998) (“When no transcript is provided on appeal, the reviewing court assumes that the record supports the trial court’s decision.”).