Cited by

1 See Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.

See Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., (“In order for the court to make a determination that the hours claimed are justified, the fee application must be in sufficient detail to enable the court to assess the reasonableness of the time incurred.”) However, Wagner did not raise this argument on appeal, so he has waived it, and we do not add

Although the records were not accompanied by an affidavit of the kind described in Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., Heshion did not raise that objection at the hearing.

The Yarbroughs’ and Rocking Dd’s application for attorneys’ fees contained a supporting affidavit by their Tiffany & Bosco attorneys and time entries from all three law firms specifying dates, times, and the billing attorney for each task performed for the Yarbroughs and Rocking Dd, as required by Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., –88 (App. 1983).

¶42 The Shinnicks’ affidavit seeking fees complies with Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc.

alized” objections to its fee request were “legally deficient.” Moreover, the County contends, the court’s refusal to award fees for time its counsel spent on unsuccessful claims was contrary to the principle that when “a party has accomplished the result sought in the litigation, fees should be awarded for time spent even on unsuccessful legal theories.” Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.

See, e.g., Jones, 164 Ariz. at 597 (affirming a significantly reduced fee amount after partial success); Cook, 245 Ariz. at 371 ¶ 10–15 (affirming an approximately 40% fee reduction after a partial success); see also Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., (recognizing that in certain circumstances “[w]here a party has achieved only partial or limited success .

For fee-paying clients, “the rate charged by the lawyer to the client is the best indication of what is reasonable under the circumstances of the particular case.” Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., – 88 (1983).

See Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc.

Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc.

The doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention, derived from the establishment and free exercise clauses, precludes civil courts from inquiring into ecclesiastical matters, such as those concerning “theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of the church to the standard of morals required for 2 Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc.

Our vacatur of the amended judgment’s award of pre- and post-judgment interest does not change that Creditor generally “accomplished the result sought in the litigation.” See Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc.

Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., (“Where a party has achieved only partial or limited success .

is the best indication of what is reasonable under the circumstances of the particular case.” Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., –88 (App. 1983).

See Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., (“[W]here a party has accomplished the result sought in the litigation, fees should be awarded for time spent even on unsuccessful legal theories.”).

See Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc.

See Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., Evergreen W., (holding that determination whether a lis pendens is groundless “should not involve a decision on the merits of the underlying actions”).

t. Also, their fee statements appropriately set forth their 4 KINGSTON v. KINGSTON, et al. Decision of the Court actual work performed, their substantial experience in this area of law, and their success for their clients in compliance with the fee request requirements of Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., and

Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc.

Father does not expand on this argument, and he fails to explain how the affidavit did not meet the requirements pursuant to Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.

In light of the parties’ resolution of the parenting time issues, the court ordered that Mother’s contempt petition otherwise be “deemed resolved.” ¶6 Mother then filed an affidavit seeking $2,159.24 in attorney’s fees and $89 in costs “related to [the] Rule 91 enforcement (and Rule 92 contempt) petition.” See Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., (setting forth requirements for such an affidavit).

See, e.g., Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433–37 & n.9 (1983); Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., –89 (App. 1983).

§ 25-324; Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., -89 (App. 1983).

of Ariz., see also Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., (appellate court is somewhat unsuited for the fact-finding inquiry regarding attorney’s fees).