Cited by

“A finding of 6 GURULE v. MAYS Decision of the Court fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists.” Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue of Ariz., ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

“A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists.” Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

¶ 13 (App. 1998); see also Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 (App. 2003) (“A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it, even if substantial conflicting 12 NORTH SCOTTSDALE v. CORE CENTER, et al. Decision of the Court evidence exists.”).

Kocher v. Dep’t of Rev., ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

v. Burke, ¶ 10 (2003); Kocher v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

en if we accept that Escobedo presented more evidence at trial in her favor, “[a] finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it, even if substantial conflicting evidence 4 ESCOBEDO v. BANDERAS Decision of the Court exists.” Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue of State of Ariz., ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

We defer to the superior court’s factual findings if substantial evidence supports them, Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 (App. 2003), without reweighing conflicting evidence on appeal, ¶ 13 (1999).

“A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists.” Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous “if substantial evidence supports it, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists.” Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

“A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists.” Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue of Ariz., ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

“A 3 FARRELL v. MYERS Decision of the Court finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists.” Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

“A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists.” Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue of State of Ariz., ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

Id.; see also Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 (App. 2003) (“A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists.”).

” ¶11 Although we review statutory interpretation de novo, In re MH2010-002348, ¶ 7 (App. 2011), “[w]e view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s judgment and will not set aside the related findings unless they are clearly erroneous,” In re MH 2008-001188, ¶ 14 (App. 2009); accord Kocher v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 (App. 2003) (explaining even if there is conflicting evidence, a factual finding is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it).

Moreover, “[a] finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists.” Kocher v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

“A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial 4 IN RE: MH 2020-004756 Decision of the Court evidence supports it, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists.” Kocher v. Ariz. Dep’t of Rev., ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

v. Figueroa, ¶ 9 (App. 2009) (contracts), but sustain the superior court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

“A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists.” Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue of State of Ariz., ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

“A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists.” Kocher v. Dep’t of Rev., ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

“A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists.” Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it[.]" ¶¶ 8-9 (App. 2003) (citations omitted).

Even if substantial conflicting evidence exists, “[a] finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it.” Kocher v. Dep’t of Rev. of Ariz., ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

“A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists.” ¶ 22 (App. 2016) (quoting Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue of Ariz., ¶ 9 (App. 2003)).