Cited by

See Brookover v. Roberts Enters., Inc., ¶ 16 n.1 (App. 2007) (“This court, however, may not consider evidence not before the trial court when it considered its ruling.”); ¶ 13 (App. 2000) (explaining that appellate courts will generally “not consider issues, even constitutional issues, raised for the first time on appeal”).

–29, ¶¶ 5–22 (App. 2000) (wrongfully withholding disclosure was misconduct justifying grant of a new trial); Varco, Inc. v. UNS Elec., Inc., ¶¶ 14–19 (App. 2017) (counsel engaged in misconduct by repeatedly violating court’s orders on motions in limine)

Because the trial judge here observed the trial misconduct, and because trial judges “disfavor new trial motions and will generally grant them only with great caution,” (citations omitted), this court reviews the grant of a motion for new trial “under a more liberal standard than an order denying one,” ¶ 5 (App. 2000) (citation omitted).

raised for the first time on appeal.” ¶ 13 (App. 2000).

The court abuses its discretion when its use of that discretion is “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.” ¶ 14 (App. 2000) (quoting Torres v. N. Am.

¶ 13 (App. 2000); ¶ 91 (App. 2007); see also ARCAP 13(c).

¶ 13 (App. 2000) (noting that issues first raised on appeal are waived).

¶ 13 (App. 2000) (This court “generally [does] not consider issues, even constitutional issues, raised for the first time on appeal.”).

“An ‘abuse of discretion’ is discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, 3 MCCOMBS, et al. v. JOYCE C. MILLER TRUST, et al. Decision of the Court or for untenable reasons.” ¶ 14 (App. 2000).

¶ 13 (App. 2000) (“[W]e generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, raised for the first time on appeal.”).

¶ 5 (App. 2000); see also Grant v. Ariz. Pub.

–27, ¶ 13 (App. 2000) (explaining issues raised for first time on appeal are generally waived); ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (explaining failure to develop argument with citation to record and legal authority can lead to waiver).

¶ 6 (App. 2000) (noting that a failure to timely disclose information concerning the expected testimony of an expert results in an inability “to use that information at trial absent specific extenuating circumstances”).

–27, ¶ 13 (App. 2000) (“[W]e generally do not consider issues .

¶ 13 (App. 2000) (stating that we generally do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal).

¶¶ 29–30 (explaining parties cannot preserve an issue for appeal unless they “make a timely objection stating the specific ground for [the] objection”); ¶ 13 (App. 2000) (explaining this court “generally do[es] not consider issues, even constitutional issues, raised for the first time on appeal”).

See ARCAP 11(a)(1) (defining the official record on appeal); ¶ 13 (App. 2000).