Cited by

See In re MH 2008-001188, ¶ 14 (App. 2009) (citing cases).

See In re MH 2008-001188, ¶ 14 (App. 2009) (citing cases).

3 IN RE: MH2025-005060 Decision of the Court See MH2011-000914, 229 Ariz. at 314, ¶ 8; In re MH 2008-001188, ¶ 14 (App. 2009) (“[W]e will affirm the superior court’s order for involuntary treatment if it is supported by substantial evidence.”).

Mental Health No. MH 2008-001188

In re MH 2008–001188, ¶ 14 (App. 2009).

Mental Health No. MH 2008-001188

at the court find that a patient is unwilling and unable to accept ‘treatment.’” ¶11 Although we review statutory interpretation de novo, In re MH2010-002348, ¶ 7 (App. 2011), “[w]e view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s judgment and will not set aside the related findings unless they are clearly erroneous,” In re MH 2008-001188, ¶ 14 (App. 2009); accord Kocher v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 (App. 2003) (explaining even if there is conflicting evidence, a fact

DISCUSSION ¶7 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s judgment.” In re MH 2008–001188, ¶ 14 (App. 2009).

In re MH 2008-001188, ¶ 14 (App. 2009) (citing In re MH 94-00592, ).

“We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s judgment,” In re MH 2008-001188, and we will not reverse an involuntary treatment order for insufficient evidence “unless it is ‘clearly erroneous or unsupported by any credible evidence,’” In re MH 2008-000438, quoting In re Maricopa Cnty.

In re MH 2008-001188, ¶ 14

In re MH 2008-001188, ¶ 14

In re MH 2008-001188, ¶ 14

In doing so, “[w]e view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s judgment,” In re MH 2008-001188, ¶ 14 , , 1163 (App.2009), but review de novo the application and interpretation of statutes involving involuntary mental health treatment, In re MH2010-002637, ¶ 13

In re MH 2008-001188, ¶ 14

1 In re MH 2008-001188, ¶ 14