Cited by

n.2 (1978) (citations omitted).

“[W]here an incomplete record is presented to an appellate court, the missing portions of that record are to be presumed to support the action of the trial court.” n.2 (1978) (citation omitted).

“[W]here an incomplete record is presented to an appellate court, the missing portions of that record are to be presumed to support the action of the trial court.” n.2 (1978) (citation omitted).

Taylor properly sought an order to submit a portion of that transcript in an audio recording, but what he provided are excerpts lasting less than three minutes.1 “[W]here an incomplete record is presented to an appellate court, the missing portions of that record are to be presumed to support the action of the trial court.” n.2 (1978).

n.2 (1978) (citation omitted); ¶ 11 (App. 2014).

(“Hearsay or speculation is not competent evidence” to overcome summary judgment).

“[W]here an incomplete record is presented to an appellate court, the missing portions of that record are to be presumed to support the action of the trial court.” n.2 (1978) (citation omitted).

(party opposing summary judgment has the burden to show competent evidence justifying a triable issue of fact); (conclusory allegations insufficient to defeat summary judgment).

n.2 (1978) (citation omitted).

(hearsay is not competent evidence that creates a triable issue of fact to withstand summary judgment).

Rather, they must show that competent evidence is available which will justify a trial on the issue.” 4 GOSHKARIAN, et al. v. MCGOVERN, et al. Decision of the Court (App. 1980) ( and Hensley v. A. J. Bayless Stores, Inc., ).

“[W]here an incomplete record is presented to an appellate court, the missing portions of that record are to be presumed to support the action of the trial court.” n.2 (1978)

n.2 (1978) (noting, where appellant did not provide the relevant transcript, appellate court is “unable to give any consideration to appellant’s attempt to recite the events which occurred during the course of the preliminary hearing”) (citations omitted); see also ARCAP 11(b) (addressing procedure for transcript

6 GREENWOOD v. BLOCK Decision of the Court Ariz. 515, 521, (“Damages that are speculative, remote or uncertain may not form the basis of a judgment.”); (stating that speculation is not competent evidence).

And the recording from the hospital, the substance of which is not of record on appeal, is presumed to support the superior court’s ruling, including the conclusion that “[njone of the contents of the recording from the hospital would rise even near to the level of express rejection of medical care.” , 168 n. 2, , 1159 n. 2 (1978) (“where an incompíete record is presented to an appellate court, the missing portions of that record are to be presumed to support the action of the trial court”) (cit

“[W]here an incomplete record is presented to an appellate court, the missing portions of that record are to be presumed to support the action of the trial court.” n.2 (1978).

88 n. 7, , 890 n. 7 (1990); , 168 n. 2, , 1159 n. 2 (1978).

P.2d 550 (1975) (unlawful detention essential element of false arrest and false imprisonment); P.2d 1156 (1978) (false imprisonment defined as detention of person without consent and without lawful authority); P.2d 598 (App. 1985) (person falsely arrested when detained without consent and without lawful authority); 1 Dan B. Dobbs, The Law of Torts § 36, at 67