Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kocher v. Department of Revenue, 80 P.3d 287.

96 citing documents.

Haley W., Gary W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Haley W., Gary W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Dependency Action No. 93511, ); see also Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue of Ariz., ¶ 9 (App. 2003) (“A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists.”).
Meno's construction/aig v. Reyes 442 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Meno's construction/aig v. Reyes 442 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“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)).
Spanish Hills v. Wollner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Spanish Hills v. Wollner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-52, ¶ 11 (App. 2009) ( ¶ 9 (App. 2003)).
Dbt Yuma LLC v. Ycaa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Dbt Yuma LLC v. Ycaa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Southwest v. Sbbi, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Southwest v. Sbbi, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See 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.”).
Phillips v. Cabrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Phillips v. Cabrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
at ¶ 11 (quoting Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 (App. 2003), ¶ 18 (App. 2005)).
Massey v. 1st Hc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Massey v. 1st Hc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
v. Burke, ¶ 10 (2003), and Kocher v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 (App. 2003)).
Shyann P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Shyann P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 9 (App. 2003) ("A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists.").
Heard-Vaughn v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Heard-Vaughn v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Rogone v. Sasser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Rogone v. Sasser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(quoting Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue of Ariz., ¶ 9 (App. 2003)).
Ramsey v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 384 P.3d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ramsey v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 384 P.3d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“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) (citing Moore v. Title Ins.
Clark v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Clark v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 (App. 2003) (explaining that a finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it, even when substantial conflicting evidence also exists).
Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
McNeil v. Hoskyns 337 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
McNeil v. Hoskyns 337 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Wells Fargo v. Crown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Reyes v. Mendez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Wells Fargo v. Crown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists.” ¶ 9
Reyes v. Mendez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue of State of Ariz., ¶ 9
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Castro, 222 Ariz. at 51-52, ¶ 11, 213 P.3d at 200-01 (quoting Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue of Ariz., ¶ 9, ).
Natale v. Natale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Natale v. Natale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mendota Insurance v. Gallegos 302 P.3d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Mendota Insurance v. Gallegos 302 P.3d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Kocher v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 , (appellate court will sustain superior court’s factual finding unless clearly erroneous; factual finding is not clearly erroneous “if substantial evidence supports it”).
Bennett James L. Bennett Money Purchase Pension Plan Meyerstein v. Baxter Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Bennett James L. Bennett Money Purchase Pension Plan Meyerstein v. Baxter Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
See Kocher v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 206 Ariz. 480, ¶ 9, (factual finding sustained unless clearly erroneous; not clearly erroneous “if substantial evidence supports it”); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez 213 P.3d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez 213 P.3d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if *52 substantial evidence supports it, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists.” Kocher v. Dep’t of Revenue of Ariz., ¶ 9
Scottsdale Insurance v. Cendejas 205 P.3d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Scottsdale Insurance v. Cendejas 205 P.3d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Kocher v. Dep’t of Rev. of Ariz., ¶ 10
John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Maricopa County 96 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Maricopa County 96 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 10 , Kocher v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by