Cited by

(“The question is not whether error occurred, but whether it is harmless, that is, whether it is of such technical, non-prejudicial character 14 STITH v. BELLA VITA HEALTH, et al. Williams, J., dissenting that neither p

¶24 To justify reversal, “there must not only be error, but the error must have been prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party.”

Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 27 (“No cause shall be reversed for technical error in pleadings or proceedings when upon the whole case it shall appear that substantial justice has been done.”); -15 (1997); see also Ariz. R. Civ.

See Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 27 (“No cause shall be reversed for technical error in pleadings or proceedings when upon the whole case it shall appear that substantial justice has been done.”); (“To justify the reversal of a case, there must not only be error, but the error must have been prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party.”).

See Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 27 (“No cause shall be reversed for technical error in pleadings or proceedings when upon the whole case it shall appear that substantial justice has been done.”); (“To justify the reversal of a case, there must not only be error, but the error must have been prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party.” ()).

¶37 In the civil context, “error is harmless unless it is inconsistent with substantial justice or affects the substantial rights of the parties.” -15 (1997); Ariz. R. Civ.

(error must be prejudicial to substantial rights of party to warrant reversal); Joshua J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

(explaining error is reversible only if prejudicial to substantial rights of party).

(error reversible only if prejudicial).

-16 (1997) (finding harmless error in failing to attach required affidavits when appellants “have shown no prejudice and merely demand compliance with a technical rule”); ¶ 17 (App. 2004) (applying abuse of 4

Sec., ¶ 18 (App. 2013) ().

Sec., ¶ 18 (App. 2013) ().

–15 (1997) (error reversible only if prejudicial).

Third, even assuming the court issued its clarification order prematurely, the error was harmless because Father had a chance to present his arguments in his motion to alter or amend the 5 VAN CAMP v. VAN CAMP Decision of the Court clarification.2 (error reversible only if prejudicial).

DISCUSSION ¶5 We review the superior court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 5 (App. 2018), and will not reverse unless the court incorrectly applied the law, resulting in unfair prejudice, ¶ 6 (App. 2000)

P. 61 (“At every stage of the proceeding, the court must disregard all errors and defects that do not affect any party’s substantial rights.”); -15 (1997).

("Dictum is not binding precedent because, inter alia, it is without the force of adjudication and the court may not have been fully advised on the question."), aff'd

Dictum is a “court's statement on a question not necessarily involved in the case before it.” approved

(“To justify the reversal of a case, there must not only be error, but the error must have been prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party.” (citation omitted)).

*50 ¶ 18 “To justify the reversal of a case, there must not only be error, but the error must have been prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party.” , ( , ); see Bob H. v. Ariz. of Dep’t Econ.

(citations omitted) (holding error must be prejudicial to substantial rights of party to justify reversal).

-15 , -27 (1997) (reversible error is substantial error that may have prejudiced the complaining party).

(prior opinion not binding precedent on issue not squarely presented for decision); (same), aff’d, 160 Ariz. 502, (supreme court’s statement in prior case that error was “reversible” was dictum where it would have been sufficient “[t]o have found mere ‘error’”).