Cited by

¶14 (App. 2014) (due process requires an evidentiary hearing when a materially contested issue turns on credibility).

A parent contesting modification has a due process right “to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” ¶¶ 19–20 (App. 2014) (citation omitted).

We review due process challenges de novo, ¶ 28 (App. 2020), and will reverse a decision for a due process violation only if the error prejudices a party, ¶ 26 (App. 2014).

¶14 Linda argues that by receiving evidence at the August 16, 2022 hearing, the court “deprived [her] of a meaningful opportunity to present her evidence and test the veracity of Zia’s claims.” Volk, however, addressed the due process requirement that a court “afford the parties an opportunity to present swor

e violated his due process rights by “clearly” and “intentional[ly]” deceiving him “into believing that his spousal maintenance [obligation] would be limited to only one year.” We review due process challenges de novo, ¶ 28 (App. 2020), and we will reverse a decision based on a due process violation only if the error prejudices a party, ¶ 26 (App. 2014).

Due process requires that the court “afford the parties ‘an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time in a meaningful manner.’” ¶ 20 (App. 2014) (citation omitted).

“[D]ue process requires the court to allow parties a reasonable opportunity to present testimony whenever resolution of a material contested issue hinges on credibility.” ¶ 14 (App. 2014).

¶ 1 & 470 ¶ 25 (App. 2014) (avowals of counsel are not evidence); (argument of counsel is not evidence).

Due process requires that the court “afford the parties an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” ¶ 20 (App. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Due process requires the court “afford the parties ‘an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” ¶ 20 (App. 2014) (quotation omitted).

Parents contesting modification have a due-process right “to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” ¶¶ 19–20 (App. 2014) (quotation omitted).

Due process requires “notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Curtis, 212 Ariz. at 312, ¶ 16; ¶ 14 (App. 2014) (“[D]ue process requires the court to allow parties a reasonable opportunity to present testimony whenever resolution of a material contested issue hinges on credibility.”).

They instead assert we should accept special- action jurisdiction because their challenge raises due process concerns and, 4 SALINAS, et al. v. THOMAS, et al. Decision of the Court therefore, an issue of statewide importance, ¶ 2 (App. 2014).

“[D]ue process requires the court to allow parties a reasonable opportunity to present testimony whenever resolution of a material contested issue hinges on credibility.” ¶ 14 (App. 2014).

Due process requires that the court “afford the parties ‘an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” ¶ 20 (App. 2014) (citation omitted).

Although relying on Volk v. Brame, Daniel has not shown the court purported to assess witness credibility “without taking any sworn testimony.” ¶ 11 (App. 2014).

any testamentary or documentary evidence [is received].” ¶ 24 (App. 2014) (alteration in original) (quoting Obersteiner v. Indus.

But the court must exercise that discretion consistent with due process, which requires that parties have “a reasonable opportunity to present testimony whenever resolution of a material contested issue hinges on credibility.” ¶ 14 (App. 2014).

¶37 Due process requires that the parties have “an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” ¶ 20 (App. 2014) (quotation omitted).

“Due process errors require reversal only if a party is thereby prejudiced.” ¶ 26 (App. 2014).

The court must “allow for meaningful direct testimony and efficient but adequate cross- examination.” ¶ 21 (App. 2014).