Cited by

¶21 On appeal, we do not reweigh the evidence, ¶ 49 (App. 2017), and "must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the decree."

We review the court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice, Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, but we review the court’s interpretation of procedural rules de novo, ¶ 28 (App. 2017).

¶ 12 (App. 2017) (special action is proper challenge to warrant); ¶ 1 (App. 2014) (similar); Ariz. R.P.

the weighing of evidence.” ¶ 49 (App. 2017).

¶ 12 (App. 2017) (regarding temporary orders); State ex rel.

statewide importance.” ¶ 7 (App. 2023); ¶ 12 (App. 2017).

SPECIAL ACTION JURISDICTION ¶6 “Special action jurisdiction is discretionary, but appropriate when no ‘equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal’ exists.” ¶ 12 (App. 2017) (quoting Ariz. R. P. Spec.

We review the superior court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, ¶ 28 (App. 2018), and we interpret rules according to statutory construction principles, ¶ 28 (App. 2017).

Temporary orders are not directly appealable because they are “‘merely preparatory to a later proceeding’ that might affect the judgment or its enforcement.” ¶ 12 (App. 2017) (citation omitted).

Nor has he shown that the court abused its discretion in weighing the evidence and determining credibility, ¶ 49 (App. 2017), particularly given that this court does not reweigh credibility and conflicting evidence on appeal, ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

This court defers to the superior court’s weighing of evidence and determinations of witness credibility, ¶ 49 (App. 2017), and will not reweigh credibility and conflicting evidence on appeal, ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

SPECIAL ACTION JURISDICTION ¶11 “Special action jurisdiction is discretionary, but appropriate when no ‘equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal’ exists.” ¶ 12 (App. 2017) (quoting Ariz. R.P.

§ 12-821.01.1 ¶ 13 (App. 2017) (Special action jurisdiction is appropriate when “a petition presents a purely legal issue of first impression that is of statewide importance.”) (internal quotation omitted).

–68, ¶ 34 (App. 2017) (citation omitted).

¶ 12 (App. 2017) (temporary orders are not appealable).