DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Nataros v. Fine Arts Gallery of Scottsdale, Inc., 612 P.2d 500.

26 citing documents.

  • Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    Corp., (deviating from “net judgment rule” when there were monetary and non- monetary equitable claims with varied success); Nataros v. Fine Arts Gallery of Scottsdale, Inc., 49 (App. 1980) (applying “totality of the litigation” test when no damages were awarded in case where defendant successfully defended plaintiff’s claim but lost on its counterclaims).3 3 Accord Desert Mountain Props.
  • Panto v. Sines Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Panto v. Sines Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    See Nataros v. Fine Arts Gallery of Scottsdale, Inc., (affirming the superior court’s determination of successful party “based upon the totality of the litigation presented”).
  • Arik v. Rgo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Arik v. Rgo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    (citing Nataros v. Fine Arts Gallery of Scottsdale, Inc., P.2d 500 (App. 1980)).
  • Eick v. Delta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Eick v. Delta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Co., (“percentage of success” evaluation proper); Nataros v. Fine Arts Gallery of Scottsdale, Inc., (approving “totality of the litigation presented to the trial court” assessment of 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
    Co. of Ariz., , Notaros v. Fine Arts Gallery of Scottsdale, Inc., , ).
  • Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C. 261 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C. 261 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    Co. of Ariz., , see also Notaros v. Fine Arts Gallery of Scottsdale, Inc., , (plaintiff alleged fraud; defendant counterclaimed for libel and slander; neither received monetary judgment, but award of fees and costs to defendant based on totality affirmed).
  • McEvoy v. Aerotek, Inc. 34 P.3d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • McEvoy v. Aerotek, Inc. 34 P.3d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    It is true that in some cases, “[w]hen determining the successful party for the purposes of awarding costs, we view the totality of circumstances and the relative success of the litigants.” McAlister v. Citibank (Arizona), , see also Notaros v. Fine Arts Gallery of Scottsdale, Inc., , (holding that, based on totality of litigation, trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendants were the successful party).
  • Aaron v. Fromkin 994 P.2d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Aaron v. Fromkin 994 P.2d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    See, , Notaros v. Fine Arts Gallery of Scottsdale, Inc.
  • McAlister v. Citibank 829 P.2d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • McAlister v. Citibank 829 P.2d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
    Nataros v. Fine Arts Gallery of Scottsdale, Inc.
  • 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
  • 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
    In Nataros v. Fine Arts Gallery of Scottsdale, Inc., , the trial court found the defendant to be the successful party even though neither won relief on its claim or counterclaim.
  • Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Construction Co. 733 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Construction Co. 733 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986