Cited by

¶30 We briefly note that Sweeney’s novel departure from our appellate standard of review is premised entirely on two inapposite cases— ¶ 13 (App. 2001), and State v. McCoy, 692 N.W.2d 6, 29 (Iowa 2005).

¶ 10 (App. 2014); ¶ 13 (App. 2001).

See, ¶ 8 (App. 2021); ¶ 35 (App. 2001).

¶9 “[U]nder appropriate circumstances,” this court may exercise special action jurisdiction “even when the parties have not requested such relief.” ¶ 6 (App. 2015); ¶ 35 (App. 2001) (after finding appellate jurisdiction lacking, court sua sponte accepted special action jurisdiction).

¶ 35 (App. 2001) (although this court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal from a civil contempt finding, it may treat it as a petition for special action and accept jurisdiction).

¶ 10 (App. 2014); ¶ 13 (App. 2001).

¶ 36 (App. 2001) (citation omitted).

¶ 35 (App. 2001); see also A.R.S.

¶ 35 (App. 2001) (exercising discretion to treat appeal of contempt order as a petition for special action); A.R.S.

NIBLEY v. HILLE Decision of the Court 585, ¶ 7 (App. 2017) (reviewing appeal as a special action because contempt findings are only reviewable by special action); ¶ 35 (App. 2001) (this court lacks jurisdiction “over an appeal from a civil contempt adjudication”).

1 Father also argues the superior court should have held Mother in contempt, but the denial of a petition for contempt is not appealable, ¶ 35 (App. 2001).

The law is clear that this court lacks jurisdiction “over an appeal from a civil contempt adjudication.” ¶ 35 (App. 2001).

6 WILLIAMS v. WILLIAMS Decision of the Court court’s findings “only if they are clearly erroneous.” ¶ 13 (App. 2001).

¶ 35 (App. 2001) (citing Lloyd v. State Farm Mut.

¶ 13 (App. 2001); –48 ¶ 13 (App. 1998).

–98, ¶ 7 (App. 2012) (appeal treated as a special action when parties appealed from a superior court minute entry); ¶ 35 (App. 2001) (after finding appellate jurisdiction lacking, court sua sponte accepted special action jurisdiction); see also A.R.S.

Even if jurisdiction by appeal is lacking, this court has the “discretion to consider the matter as a special action.” ¶ 35 (App. 2001) (sua sponte accepting special action jurisdiction).

¶ 10 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 13 (App. 2001)).

¶ 37 (App. 2001); see generally Ariz. R. Fam.

1); ¶ 35 (App. 2001) (sua sponte accepting 3 GRAYSON v. BANNER, et al. Decision of the Court special action jurisdiction after finding appellate jurisdiction lacking).

See Danielson v. Evans , , 411, ¶ 35, , 759 (App. 2001) (finding appellate jurisdiction lacking, and sua sponte accepting special action jurisdiction); A.R.S.

¶ 13 (App. 2001); ¶ 10 (App. 2007).

¶ 37 (App. 2001) (citing additional cases).

Even if appellate jurisdiction is lacking, this court has the “discretion to consider the matter as a special action.” ¶ 35, 36 (App. 2001) (sua sponte 3Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

¶ 27 (App. 2001) (citations and quotations omitted).

¶ 13 (App. 2001) (citing Ariz. R. Civ.

We review independently the jurisdiction of a lower tribunal to make a , ¶ 36, , 759 (App. 2001).

But we do not reweigh evidence on appeal; rather, we defer to the court’s factual findings, both express and implied, unless they are clearly erroneous, ¶ 13 (App. 2001) (citing Ariz. R. Civ.

¶ 36, (explaining that appellate courts independently review the superior court’s jurisdiction as a matter of law).