Cited by

§ 25-324(A); see also Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., ("[A]n appellate court is somewhat unsuited for the fact-finding inquiry which is frequently necessary to properly determine reasonable fees for legal services rendered.").

See Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.

See Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., -88 (App. 1983).

See Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., –88 (App. 1983) (“Just as the agreed upon billing rate between the parties may be considered unreasonable, likewise, the amount of hours claimed may also be unreasonable.”).

¶34 Handyman asserted that it was entitled to attorney’s fees under the contract and submitted its fee application with an affidavit that complied with the requirements outlined in Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.

See Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., 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.”).

For the hours claimed to be justified, “the fee application must be in sufficient detail to enable the court to assess the reasonableness of the time incurred.” Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc.

See Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., -89 (App. 1983).

Instead, Cook contends that Grebe’s fee application failed to differentiate between her successful and unsuccessful claims, and therefore, the application for attorneys’ fees should have been rejected under Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.

¶29 The court evaluated Auto-Owners’ fees claim using three methods: (1) “what Auto-Owners actually had to do to prevail in their defense”; (2) what fees Auto-Owners incurred before Appellants made their $29,500 offer of judgment; and (3) the billing rates and hours claimed, as required by Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc.

3 See Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc.

and the time spent in providing the service.” Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc. (citing Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21).

Schweiger v. China Doll 18 ANSLEY, et al. v. BANNER HEALTH, et al. Opinion of the Court Rest., Inc.

See Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., -88 (App. 1983).

Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc.

Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., –188 (App. 1983).

See, e.g., Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., (detailing the information required to substantiate a claim for attorneys’ fees).

6 Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc.

Reasonableness of Attorneys' Fees ¶10 Alanco argues the superior court did not follow Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., and thus erred when it awarded Black Creek its attorneys' fees on unsuccessful claims.

¶11 On April 1, 2016, the court filed its order regarding legal decision making and parenting time, and awarding Mother attorney’s fees after the filing of an affidavit pursuant to Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.

Under the 2010 Guaranty, –88 (App. 1983), the superior court awarded HTA $490,694 in attorney's fees and $24,243 in costs.

¶35 “An appellate court is somewhat unsuited for the fact-finding inquiry which is frequently necessary to properly determine reasonable fees for legal services rendered.” ¶ 13, (quoting Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., ).

12 TRIYAR v. REM et al. Decision of the Court Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., 8 However, this is not supported by the record.