Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Murillo v. Hernandez, 281 P.2d 786.

113 citing documents.

In Re Term of Parental Rights as to L.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to L.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to B.W. Ariz. 2025
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to B.W. Ariz. 2025
A decision is clearly erroneous if, as a matter of law, “no one could reasonably find the evidence to be clear and convincing.” Brionna J., 255 Ariz. at 479 ¶ 31 ().
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to J.C. 562 P.3d 393 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to J.C. 562 P.3d 393 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶61 Based on the above, we cannot say, “as a matter of law that no one could reasonably find the evidence to be clear and convincing.” Brionna J., 255 Ariz. at 481 ¶ 46 ().
In Re Termination of Parental Rights as to N.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In Re Termination of Parental Rights as to N.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to B.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to B.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Brionna J., 255 Ariz. at 479, ¶ 31 ().
In Re Termination of Parental Rights as to A.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In Re Termination of Parental Rights as to A.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to R.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to R.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶14 “[T]he question of whether [a] statutory factor is supported by the mandated quantum of evidence will not be disturbed unless the appellate court determines ‘as a matter of law that no one could reasonably find the evidence to be clear and convincing.’” Brionna J., 255 Ariz. at 479, ¶ 31 ().
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to B.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to B.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Brionna J. v. dcs/a.V. Ariz. 2023
Brionna J. v. dcs/a.V. Ariz. 2023
In making this determination, the question of whether the statutory factor is supported by the mandated quantum of evidence will not be disturbed unless the appellate court determines “as a matter of law that no one could reasonably find the evidence to be clear and convincing.” ( (Crockett, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)).
Layke H. v. Dcs, M.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Layke H. v. Dcs, M.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sec., ¶ 10 (App. 2009) ().
Roseann R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Roseann R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sec., ¶ 7 (App. 2009) ().
Schmitzer v. Schmitzer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Schmitzer v. Schmitzer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
for the proposition that when a confidential relationship exists between two parties and one party deeds property to the other, coupled with a promise to reconvey the property back to the grantor, even though no active fraud by the grantee in procuring the conveyance is shown, a co
Faith P. v. Dcs, L.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Faith P. v. Dcs, L.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sec., ¶ 7 (App. 2009) ().
Wiley A. v. Dcs, K.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Wiley A. v. Dcs, K.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sec., ¶ 7 (App. 2009) ().
Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions 367 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions 367 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Sec., , , (alteration in Denise R.).
Kelly B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Kelly B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sec., ¶ 10, ( ) (alteration in original).
James W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
James W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Megan M., Dustin J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Megan M., Dustin J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Jordan C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 219 P.3d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Jordan C. , Jesse C., Kailynn C., Michele C. v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Jordan C. , Jesse C., Kailynn C., Michele C. v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Jordan C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 219 P.3d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Denise R. v. Ades, Draven R. and Larsen R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Denise R. v. Ades, Draven R. and Larsen R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶6 In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, “[o]ur duty, on appeal, begins and ends with the inquiry whether the trial court had before it evidence upon which an unprejudiced mind might reasonably have reached the same conclusion.” see also Estate of Pouser, 975 P.2d at 709 (“substantial evidence” required to affirm “is evidence which would 4 permit a reasonable person to reach the trial court’s result”).
In re the Estate of Fishman 30 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
In re the Estate of Fishman 30 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
P.2d 786 (1955) (action sought to establish constructive trust as to one-half interest in realty); , (equitable action brought to impress constructive trust on property); , (action filed to impose
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
In re the Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, MH-1049-3-85 709 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
In re the Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, MH-1049-3-85 709 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-4130