Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Estate of Mustonen v. Schroeder, 635 P.2d 876.

34 citing documents.

Lu v. Lu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Lu v. Lu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Substantial evidence is “relevant evidence from which a reasonable mind might draw a conclusion.” In re Mustonen’s Est.
FULLER v. SCOTTSDALE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
FULLER v. SCOTTSDALE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“In its ordinary civil context, ‘substantial evidence’ is simply relevant evidence from which a reasonable mind might draw a conclusion.” In re Mustonen’s Estate
Toller v. Toller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Toller v. Toller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Doe v. Abor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Doe v. Abor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
"'Substantial evidence' is defined as any 'relevant evidence from which a reasonable mind might draw a conclusion.'" ().
State v. Miller 429 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Miller 429 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
4 STATE v. MILLER Opinion of the Court findings and conclusions.” Baker, 183 Ariz. at 73 (citing In re Mustonen’s Estate, ).
Ryan v. Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ryan v. Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See In re Mustonen’s Estate, ARCAP 11 (a party is responsible for making certain the record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for us to consider the issues raised on appeal).
Quam v. Grove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Quam v. Grove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Testimony regarding prior transactions with a decedent is admissible “only in the trial court’s discretion to prevent an injustice or where there is independent evidence to corroborate the statement or transaction.” ( and Mahan v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz., ).
Thomas v. Njie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Thomas v. Njie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
urthermore, as the appellant, Wife “is responsible for making certain the record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for [this Court] to consider the issues raised on appeal.” (“When a party fails to include necessary items, we assume they would support the court’s findings and conclusions.”) (citing In re Mustonen’s Estate, ); see also ARCAP 11(c)(1)(A)-(B) (stating it is the appellant’s duty to order, and include in the record, transcripts of all relevant proceeding
Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire v. A.P.S. Rent a Car & Leasing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire v. A.P.S. Rent a Car & Leasing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mealey v. Arndt 76 P.3d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Mealey v. Arndt 76 P.3d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
“Substantial evidence” is “ ‘any relevant evidence from which a reasonable mind might draw a conclusion.’ ” Troutman v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Arizona, , ( , ).
Baker v. Baker 900 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Baker v. Baker 900 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Estate of Page v. Litzenburg 865 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Estate of Page v. Litzenburg 865 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Troutman v. Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona 826 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Troutman v. Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona 826 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In Re the Estate of Calligaro v. Owen 768 P.2d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
In Re the Estate of Calligaro v. Owen 768 P.2d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Mahan v. First Nat’l Bank of Arizona
Biddulph v. Biddulph 711 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Biddulph v. Biddulph 711 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
We must therefore presume the evidence supports the actions of the trial court, , Hunt v. Hunt, 22 Ariz.App.
Mahan v. First Nat. Bank of Arizona 677 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Mahan v. First Nat. Bank of Arizona 677 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Brousseau v. Fitzgerald 675 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1984
Brousseau v. Fitzgerald 675 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1984