Cited by

See In re $26,980.00 U.S. Currency, ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (factual findings are not clearly erroneous if supported by substantial evidence, even if conflicting evidence also exists).

“Factual findings are not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports them.” In re $26,980 U.S. Currency

¶ 13 (2020) (“[I]f a defendant simply asserts a general claim of error on appeal and fails to develop it, a court is not obligated to consider it.”); (“Failure to argue a claim usually constitutes abandonment and waiver of that claim.”); see also In re $26,980.00 U.S. Currency, ¶ 28 (App. 2000) (this Court does not consider bald assertions offered without elaboration or citation to legal authority).

013) (“We will accept the court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.”); (“Factual findings ‘are not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports them,’ and ‘[s]ubstantial evidence is evidence which would permit a reasonable person to reach the trial court’s result.’” (alteration in Davis) (quoting In re $26,980 U.S. Currency, )).

at 524 (quoting In re U.S. Currency in Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 9 (App. 2000)).

In re U.S. Currency in Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 9 (App. 2000).

In re U.S. Currency in Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 9 (App. 2000); ("If two inconsistent factual conclusions could be supported by the record, then there is substantial evidence to support [a] .

“[W]hether a claimant has proven ownership by a preponderance of the evidence is a question of fact.” In re U.S. Currency in Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 9 (App. 2000).

Thus, “the trial court, not this court, assesses credibility.” In re U.S. Currency in Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 10 (App. 2000).

See, e.g., In re U.S. Currency in Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 28 (App. 2000) (refusing to consider unsupported and undeveloped arguments).

See In re $26,980 U.S. Currency, (failure to respond to argument in answering brief may be construed as confession of error); see also Bulova Watch Co. v. Super City Dep’t Stores of Ariz., Inc., (principle that failure to file answering brief constitutes confession of error “equally applicable” when appe

See In re $26,980.00 U.S. Currency

¶ 33 (App. 2011); In re U.S. Currency in Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 28 (App. 2000).2 IV.

In re U.S. Currency in Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 10 (App. 2000); ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (“We must give due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses.”).

See, e.g., In re U.S. Currency in Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 28 (App. 2000) (refusing to consider unsupported and undeveloped arguments).

See, e.g., In re U.S. Currency in Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 28 (App. 2000) (refusing to consider unsupported and undeveloped arguments).

“[W]hether a claimant has proven ownership by a preponderance of the evidence is a question of fact.” In re U.S. Currency in Amount of $26,980.00 (“$26,980.00 II”), ¶ 9 (App. 2000).

However, “where there is a dispute in the evidence from which reasonable [persons] could arrive at different conclusions as to the ultimate facts, we will not disturb the findings of a trial court.” In re U.S. Currency in Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 16 (App. 2000) (citations omitted); ¶ 5 (App. 2000) (noting that the appellate court gives “due regard to the opportunity of the [superior] court to judge the credibility of witnesses”).

See In re U.S Currency in Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 28 (App. 2000) (rejecting a party’s “bald assertion” of constitutional violations when it was “offered without elaboration or citation to any constitutional provisions or legal authority”); see also Rule 13(a)(7)(A).

Law P. 82; In re U.S. Currency in Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 7 (App. 2000).

Evidence is substantial if “a reasonable person [could] reach the trial court’s result.” –24, ¶ 18 (App. 2005) (quoting In re U.S. Currency in the Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 9 (App. 2000)).

legal authority.” In re U.S. Currency in the Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 28 (App. 2000) (citing ARCAP 13, and Brown v. U.S. Fid.

See In re U.S. Currency in the Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 9 (App. 2000).

See In re U.S. Currency in Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 28 (App. 2000) (declining to consider appellant’s “bald assertion [that was] offered without elaboration or citation to any constitutional provisions or legal authority”).

xamine the basis for the superior court’s decision, only findings of the ultimate facts are required for an effective review, without the need to “bolster them by subsidiary findings on evidentiary matters upon which such ultimate facts are based.” ¶ 25 (App. 2012); In re U.S. Currency in Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 7 (App. 2000); see also Ariz. R. Civ.