Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Burr, 615 P.2d 635.

55 citing documents.

NOVALIS-MARINE v. MONASH Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶15 “A factual finding is clearly erroneous only when, considering the totality of the evidence, the reviewing court ‘is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Valdez, 254 Ariz. at 499 ¶ 14 ().
State v. Becker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Becker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶9 Moreover, to find error with the court’s evaluation of the facts, we must—after examining the entirety of the evidence—be “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” –39 ¶ 21 (App. 2021) ().
Anderson v. State Farm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Anderson v. State Farm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
s clearly erroneous only when, considering the totality of the evidence, the reviewing court 'is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'" Valdez v. 4 ANDERSON, ¶ 14 (App. 2019) ().
state/smith v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
state/smith v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Lacour v. Lacour Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Lacour v. Lacour Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Scott v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Scott v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. King 480 P.3d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. King 480 P.3d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
“A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (citations omitted).
State v. Bartels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Bartels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(quoting Palermo v. Warden, 545 F.2d 286, 293 (2d Cir. 1976)).
State v. Palmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Palmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Valdez v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Valdez v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
A factual finding is clearly erroneous only when, considering the totality of the evidence, the reviewing court “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (citation omitted).
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
A finding is clearly erroneous if “‘the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” (quoting Palermo v. Warden, 545 F.2d 286, 293 (2d.
State v. Pecard 998 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Pecard 998 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
and will not normally be disturbed on appeal.”
State v. Pettit 979 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Pettit 979 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JV-506561 893 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JV-506561 893 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gonzalez v. Gonzalez 887 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Gonzalez v. Gonzalez 887 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
“A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” , (quoting Palermo v. Warden, Green Haven State Prison, 545 F.2d 286, 293 (2d Cir.1976)).
State v. Lupe 889 P.2d 4 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Lupe 889 P.2d 4 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Cuffle 828 P.2d 773 Ariz. 1992
State v. Cuffle 828 P.2d 773 Ariz. 1992
State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Warner 764 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1988
State v. Warner 764 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1988
“Appellate review of the trial court’s findings of fact is limited to a determination of whether those findings are clearly erroneous.”
State v. Thomas 714 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1986
State v. Thomas 714 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1986
(defendant led to believe he would not be prosecuted if he agreed to give police information concerning a crime); , (drug-addicted defendant led to believe he would be given drugs if he cooperated).
State Ex Rel. Collins v. Superior Court 702 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1985
State Ex Rel. Collins v. Superior Court 702 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1985
Apparently, , to suppress defendant’s statement.
State v. Morse 692 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Morse 692 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Hensley 669 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1983
State v. Hensley 669 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1983
(defendant led to believe he would not be prosecuted if he agreed to give police information concerning a crime); State v. McFall, supra (drug-addicted defendant led to believe he would be given drugs if he cooperated); see also State v. Jerousek, supra; People v. Jimenez, 21 Cal.3d 595
State v. Hanson 674 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983