indulge all reasonable inferences in support of the prevailing party. Las Cruces Prof'l Fire Fighters v. City of Las Cruces, 1997-NMCA-044, ¶ 12, 123 N.M. 329, 940 P.2d 177. “The question is not whether substantial evidence exists to support the opposite result, but rather whether such evidence supports the result reached.” Id. “This court neither weighs the evidence nor passes on the credibility of witnesses.” Fierro v. Murphy, 85 N.M. 179, 180, 510 P.2d 112, 113 (Ct.App.1973). {30} We do not address those arguments that pertain to the impairment determination, since any findings regarding impairment were not an essential component of the decision, as explained above. Kelley, 76 N.M. at 473, 415 P.2d at 854; see also Downs v. Garay, 106 N.M. 321, 323, 742 P.2d 533, 535 (Ct.App.1987) (<HOLDING>). The same is true for Applicants’ arguments
holding that erroneous findings of fact not necessary to support the judgment of the court are not grounds for reversal holding where movant asserts several grounds in support of its summary judgment motion and the trial court does not specify the grounds on which judgment was granted the reviewing court can affirm the judgment if any of the grounds are meritorious holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case holding that to establish grounds for reversal an appellant must challenge all grounds on which the trial court ruled against it holding that findings of fact and legal conclusions are neither necessary nor proper in summary judgment proceeding