Cited by

The superior court abuses its discretion when its ruling is “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”

The superior court abuses its discretion when its judgment is “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”

We will not find an abuse of discretion unless the juvenile court’s decision was “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”

The superior court abuses its discretion when its ruling is “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”

The superior court abuses 4 CURRAN v. CURRAN Decision of the Court its discretion when its ruling is “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”

The superior court abuses its discretion when its ruling is “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”

Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 2005) ().

The superior court abuses its discretion when its ruling is “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”

A court abuses its discretion where its judgment is “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”

An abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”

A court abuses its discretion when its use of that discretion is “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”

An abuse of discretion “is discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”

Quigley v. City Ct. of City 3

Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 2005) ().

Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 2005) ().

“An ‘abuse of discretion’ is discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”

An abuse of discretion occurs if the court’s decision is “manifestly unreasonable,” based “on untenable grounds” or “for untenable reasons.”

¶ 11 (App. 2009); (a difference in judicial opinion is not synonymous with an abuse of discretion).

urt also found that four years of maintenance “will allow Wife the time that she needs to secure additional employment and arrange for any training she needs to secure appropriate employment.” ¶12 Although reasonable minds might differ regarding the amount and duration of the award, “[a] difference in judicial opinion is not synonymous with ‘abuse of discretion.’” (appellate court will affirm spousal maintenance award if any reasonable construction of the evidence justifies it).

Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 2005) ().

¶17 Jackson White also argues the case cannot be dismissed with prejudice unless the interests of justice so require, (interpreting Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 16.5(d) concerning dismissal of criminal prosecutions).

Merit Bd., ¶ 15 (App. 2014) (noting that when the superior court conducts appellate review, it “does not reweigh the evidence or resolve conflicts in it”); (“A difference in judicial opinion is not synonymous with ‘abuse of discretion.’”).