Cited by

SMITH v. SMITH Decision of the Court ¶6 Although this court has discretion to consider Mother’s failure to file an answering brief as conceding error, see ARCAP 15(a)(2); we decline to do so, given that the best interests of the children are involved, ¶ 2 (App. 2002)

Although this court has discretion to consider Chavez’ failure to file an appropriate answering brief as conceding error, see ARCAP 15(a)(2); we decline to do so here, see, ¶ 2 (App. 2002); -85 (1966).

¶ 14 (App. 2009) ( ¶ 11 (App. 2002)).

¶ 3 (App. 2002); ¶ 9 (App. 2019) (defining an abuse of discretion).

¶ 2 (App. 2002); (“[T]o reverse the decision of the trial court concerning the custody and well being of two minor children because their mother failed or was unable to file an answering brief would not, we believe, serve the ends of justice .

¶ 2 (App. 2002); see also ARCAP 15(a)(2).

¶ 3 (App. 2002) (citation omitted).

§ 25-403(B) constitutes legal error) ( ¶ 5 (App. 2002)).

at ¶ 20 ( ¶ 5 (App. 2002)); ¶ 11 (App. 2013).

Sec., ¶ 18 (App. 2008); ¶ 24 (App. 2004); ¶ 3 (App. 2002).

See, ¶ 5 (App. 2002); Reid, 222 Ariz. at 210 ¶ 20.