In the Matter of the Estate of Arturo Lopez

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

influence. See Rosenberg, 256 Ariz. at 364 ¶ 26. her amended opening brief, Sister-in-law does not specify which fees were excessive. Thus, the superior court's award ¶24 Sister-in-law cites no legal authority to support her of attorney fees is affirmed. position that expert testimony is required for a finding of unsound mind. Her argument is thus waived. See Sholes, 228 Ariz. at 460 ¶ 14, n.3; Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a) VII. Sister-in-Law's Appellate Briefs. (7) (each contention must contain “citation to supporting ¶29 Sister asserts “Appellant's Amended Opening Brief legal authority”). Similarly, Sister-in-law's argument that the appears to be copied and pasted from Artificial Intelligence superior court improperly characterized her prior conviction software, resulting in a seventy-two-page brief that is difficult for felony escape as a crimen falsi, a crime attributed to to understand.” This Court's review reveals that several dishonesty, is waived because she did not object at the of Sister-in-law's legal citations contain substantial defects, hearing. See Manner v. Raskin, 113 Ariz. 3, 4 (1976) (“failure including unsupported premises and fabricated quotations. to object” to alleged improper remarks “is deemed a waiver Thus, this Court finds Sister-in-law's opening brief and reply of the issue on appeal”). brief violate Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 13(a) (7), which requires that arguments contain citations to legal ¶25 As to Sister-in-law's argument that Sister was not authority. credible, “it is not the function of this court ... to second- guess the credibility determinations of the judge who had the ¶30 Compliance with this Court's rules is not optional. The opportunity to evaluate the witnesses’ demeanor and make integrity of the appellate process depends on accurate and informed credibility determinations.” In re Est. of Newman, honest advocacy. In the future, failure to provide accurate 219 Ariz. 260, 271 ¶ 40 (App. 2008). legal authority may result in sanctions. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7). VI. The Superior Court Did Not Err in Awarding Attorney Fees. VIII. Attorney Fees on Appeal.

Authorities cited in the passage: See Manner v. Raskin