Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Johnson v. Elson, 967 P.2d 1022.

107 citing documents.

Bank of Ny v. Backholm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Razdan v. Razdan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Razdan v. Razdan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 21 (App. 2005) ( ¶ 9 (App. 1998), and Copeland v. Ariz. Veterans Mem’l Coliseum, ).
Brumett v. Mga Home Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Brumett v. Mga Home Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Toth v. Brower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Toth v. Brower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Moreover, this court will “infer additional findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to sustain the [family] 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).
Martinez v. Ilem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Martinez v. Ilem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lanza v. Holladay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lanza v. Holladay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Flynn v. Rodrick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Flynn v. Rodrick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
When a party fails to include necessary items, we assume they would support the court’s findings and conclusions.” (internal citations omitted); see also ARCAP 11(b); n.1, ¶ 8 (App. 2005); ¶ 11 (App. 1998).
Desert Gardens v. Town of Quartzsite Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Desert Gardens v. Town of Quartzsite Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 11, (“[W]e 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.”).
Armed Forces v. Namvar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Armed Forces v. Namvar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
81, 890 (1990) (“As a general rule, we will not review an issue on 8 Although the trial court did not specifically make a finding regarding harmlessness, “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
Jewels v. Lund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Jewels v. Lund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
11(b)(1); See Johnson v. 4 ¶11
Rogone v. Correia 335 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rogone v. Correia 335 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
A-Plan v. Quarles & Brady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
A-Plan v. Quarles & Brady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 11, (“[W]e 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.” (citation omitted)); cf. Blair v. Burgener, 2
State ex rel. Horne v. Anthony 303 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State ex rel. Horne v. Anthony 303 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
See ARCAP 11(b)(1) (imposing the burden on the appellant to supply relevant transcripts); ¶ 11 , (presuming that the un-produced transcripts support the superior court’s ruling).
Cardoso v. Soldo 277 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cardoso v. Soldo 277 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
3 ¶ 11 , (“[W]e may infer additional findings of fact ...
Hess v. Purcell 274 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Hess v. Purcell 274 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Old Republic National Title Insurance v. New Falls Corp. 233 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Old Republic National Title Insurance v. New Falls Corp. 233 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Braillard v. Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Braillard v. Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
In the absence of such a transcript, we presume that whatever transpired at the hearing supported the trial court‟s ruling.19
Pullen v. Pullen 222 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Pullen v. Pullen 222 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
We can infer additional findings of fact 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
Kline v. Kline 212 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Kline v. Kline 212 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
13 “When no transcript is provided on appeal, the reviewing court assumes that the record supports the trial court’s decision.” ¶ 11 , ( , ).
Dowling v. Stapley 211 P.3d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Dowling v. Stapley 211 P.3d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Patterson v. Mahoney 199 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Patterson v. Mahoney 199 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Sec., ¶ 8 , ( , 488 n. 4, ¶ 8, , 1024 n. 4 (App.1998)).
Hetherington v. Hetherington 202 P.3d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Hetherington v. Hetherington 202 P.3d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Marco C. v. Sean C. & Colleen C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Marco C. v. Sean C. & Colleen C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Kenneth T. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 128 P.3d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Kenneth T. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 128 P.3d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
We review the statute and rules, and if “there is an apparent conflict between a rule and a statute, the rule and statute are harmonized if possible.” , ¶ 8 n. 4, , 1024 n. 4 (App.1998) (citations omitted).
Maher v. Urman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005