Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Trollope v. Koerner, 515 P.2d 340.

70 citing documents.

Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
specify, it must have adopted” either the “totality of the litigation” or the “percentage of success” tests.2 The question, then, is whether the superior court erred in not applying the “net judgment rule.” ¶24 The “net judgment rule” provides that “a party will be ‘successful’ if he obtains judgment for an amount in excess of the setoff or counterclaim allowed.” (citation omitted).
Polyard v. Alattar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Polyard v. Alattar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Owners Ass’n, ¶ 17 (App. 2016)
Mesa v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Mesa v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
§ 12-341.01); (construing “successful party” based on net judgment for purposes of costs under A.R.S.
Arik v. Rgo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Arik v. Rgo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶37 P.2d 350 (1976), P.2d 340 (1973), and Ocean West Contractors, P.2d 1102 (1979), RGO asserts the trial court should have applied a “no judgment rule” or the “net judgment rule,” which, as described in Trollope, permits a court to determine the prevailing party by comparing any amo
Stefanovich v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Stefanovich v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶14 Looking at the net judgment is one method of determining the successful party, (a party who obtains judgment in excess of setoff or counterclaim is “successful”), particularly in cases involving “competing claims, counterclaims and setoffs all tried together,”
Eick v. Delta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Eick v. Delta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶21 Looking at net judgment amounts is one method of determining the successful party, (a party who obtains judgment in excess of setoff or counterclaim is “successful”), particularly in cases involving “competing claims, counterclaims and setoffs all tried together.”
Assyia v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 273 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Assyia v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 273 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 32 A cost award “is mandatory in favor of the successful party.” , ( , ).
Murphy Farrell Development, LLLP v. Sourant 272 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Murphy Farrell Development, LLLP v. Sourant 272 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
at 473-74 , 600 P.2d at 1105-06 ; (deciding “a party will be ‘successful’ if he obtains judgment for an amount in excess of the setoff or counterclaim allowed”).
Multari v. Gress 155 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Multari v. Gress 155 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re the Marriage of Worcester 960 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1998
In Re the Marriage of Worcester 960 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1998
“The old equity maxim that one must come into equity with clean hands is still meaningful.”
Henry v. Cook 938 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Henry v. Cook 938 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
See, , (successful party is the net winner in cases involving claims and setoffs or counterclaims); Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Constr.
Alta Vista Plaza, Ltd. v. Insulation Specialists Co. 919 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Alta Vista Plaza, Ltd. v. Insulation Specialists Co. 919 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Examples of unliquidated *83 claims are attorney’s fees, , benefit-of-the-bargain damages, , vacated in part by , punitive damages, Lake Havasu Community Hosp., Inc., and the reasonable value of landlord improvements
Roddy v. County of Maricopa 911 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Roddy v. County of Maricopa 911 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
MVC Construction, Inc. v. Treadway 898 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
MVC Construction, Inc. v. Treadway 898 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Matter of Estate of Miles 837 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Matter of Estate of Miles 837 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Schwartz v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 800 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Schwartz v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 800 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Schwartz contends that they are the successful parties because they obtained a money judgment and Farmers did not
Ayala v. Olaiz 776 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Ayala v. Olaiz 776 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
For example, , appellants sued for $6000 but recovered only $791.75.
City of Phoenix v. Long 761 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
City of Phoenix v. Long 761 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Janis v. Spelts 739 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Janis v. Spelts 739 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc. v. Camelback Office Park 751 P.2d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc. v. Camelback Office Park 751 P.2d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Burkett v. MOTT BY MARICOPA CTY. PUB. FID. 733 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Burkett v. MOTT BY MARICOPA CTY. PUB. FID. 733 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Morris v. Achen Const. Co., Inc. 747 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Morris v. Achen Const. Co., Inc. 747 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Lake Havasu Community Hospital, Inc. v. Arizona Title Insurance 687 P.2d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
LAKE HAVASU COM. HOSP. v. Ariz. Title Ins. 687 P.2d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
LAKE HAVASU COM. HOSP. v. Ariz. Title Ins. 687 P.2d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Lake Havasu Community Hospital, Inc. v. Arizona Title Insurance 687 P.2d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Forty-Four Hundred East Broadway Co. v. 4400 East Broadway 679 P.2d 521 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Forty-Four Hundred East Broadway Co. v. 4400 East Broadway 679 P.2d 521 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Under the judgment rule, , the Anzalone Partnership was “the prevailing party” or, as used in Trollope v. Koerner, supra, the “successful party”, and not the Paye Partnership.