Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Estate of Pouser, 975 P.2d 704.

151 citing documents.

Laroya v. Laroya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Substantial evidence is evidence which would permit a reasonable person to reach the trial court’s result.” ¶ 13
Haven v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Haven v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 13, Styles, 185 Ariz. at 450, 916 P.2d at 1166.
Branigan v. Fredrickson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Branigan v. Fredrickson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 13, (“In reviewing a trial court’s findings of fact, we do not reweigh conflicting evidence or redetermine the preponderance of the evidence, but examine the record only to determine whether substantial evidence exists to support the trial court’s action.” (citing Whittemore v. Amator
Nachiappan v. Subramanian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Nachiappan v. Subramanian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 13, –48 ¶ 13, –81 (App. 1998).
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
And therefore they're not hearsay.” Furthermore, Arizona Rule of Evidence (“Rule”) 803(3) provides a hearsay exception for a “statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed [if] it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will.” ¶ 15
Chambers v. Chambers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Chambers v. Chambers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 13, –48 ¶ 13, –81 (App. 1998).
In the Matter of Michael E. Isler 315 P.3d 711 Ariz. 2014
In the Matter of Michael E. Isler 315 P.3d 711 Ariz. 2014
¶ 13, (“In reviewing a trial court’s findings of fact, we do not reweigh conflicting evidence .
In the Matter of Michael E. Isler Ariz. 2014
In the Matter of Michael E. Isler Ariz. 2014
¶ 13, (“In reviewing a trial court’s findings of fact, we do not reweigh conflicting evidence .
Dessarollo Immobiliario Y Negocios Industriales De Alta Tecnologia De Hermosillo v. Kader Holdings Company Limited Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Dessarollo Immobiliario Y Negocios Industriales De Alta Tecnologia De Hermosillo v. Kader Holdings Company Limited Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
In Re Estate of Van Der Zee 265 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
In Re Estate of Van Der Zee 265 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
“In reviewing a trial court’s findings of fact, we do not reweigh conflicting evidence or redetermine the preponderance of the evidence, but examine the record only to determine whether substantial evidence exists to support the trial court’s action.” ¶ 13
Hurd v. Hurd 219 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Hurd v. Hurd 219 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
if “substantial evidence exists to support the trial court’s action,” “where there is evidence from which a reasonable [person] could draw the same conclusions,” Bass Inv.
In re MH 2008-000097 210 P.3d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re MH 2008-000097 210 P.3d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“Substantial evidence is evidence which would permit a reasonable person to reach the trial court’s result.” ¶ 13
In Re Estate of Zilles 200 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Estate of Zilles 200 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 10 , (citation omitted) (construing a will).
In Re Estate of Newman 196 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Estate of Newman 196 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 13 , (“In reviewing a trial court’s findings of fact, we do not reweigh conflicting evidence or redetermine the preponderance of the evidence, but examine the record only to determine whether substantial evidence exists to support the trial court’s action.”).
STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF ECON. SEC. v. Lee 175 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF ECON. SEC. v. Lee 175 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Gravel Resources of Arizona v. Hills 170 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Gravel Resources of Arizona v. Hills 170 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 13 , (citations omitted).
Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
And “we do not reweigh conflicting evidence or redetermine the preponderance of the evidence, but examine the record only to determine whether substantial evidence exists to support the trial court’s action.”
Double AA Builders, Ltd. v. Grand State Construction L.L.C. 114 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Double AA Builders, Ltd. v. Grand State Construction L.L.C. 114 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 13 , (upholding the trial court’s intent finding because it was supported by substantial evidence, even though conflicting evidence existed).
Brake Masters Systems, Inc. v. Gabbay 78 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Brake Masters Systems, Inc. v. Gabbay 78 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Pro Finish USA, Ltd. v. Johnson 63 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Pro Finish USA, Ltd. v. Johnson 63 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
John L Powers v. John M Carpenter Ariz. 2002
John L Powers v. John M Carpenter Ariz. 2002
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00 18 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00 18 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
“Substantial evidence is evidence which would permit a reasonable person to reach the trial court’s result.”
Keller v. Thurston 16 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Keller v. Thurston 16 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
SAL Leasing, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Napolitano 10 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
SAL Leasing, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Napolitano 10 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Substantial evidence is evidence which would permit a reasonable person to reach the trial court’s result.” ¶ 13 , (citations omitted).
Wetherill v. Basham 3 P.3d 1118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000