Cited by

Inc., -88 , -32 (App.1983).

¶ 12 Father primarily relies on this court’s decision in Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., , to argue the family court was precluded from using a rate other than the zero-rate actually “charged” Mother by CLS.

Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, -91, ¶¶ 37-38 , -86 (App.2007) (application for fees must comply with requirements of Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., , before burden shifts to party opposing fees to show amount requested is unreasonable); McDowell Mountain, 216 Ariz. at 270-71, ¶ 20, 165 P.3d at 671-72 (fee application that complied with Schweiger established a prima facie entitlement to fee in the amount requested).

See Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc.

Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., , (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436 , 103 S.Ct.

and the time spent in providing the service.” Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., , (citing ARCAP 21).

App. P. See Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc.

See Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., 26 (where party has accomplished result sought in litigation, fees may be awarded for time spent even on unsuccessful theories).

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

¶ 23 When a case involves several claims based upon different facts or legal theories, as Berry correctly asserts is the case here, the court may decline to award fees “for those unsuccessful separate and distinct claims.” Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc.

See Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc.

¶ 9 , (trial court has discretion to determine who is the prevailing party); Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., , ("Where a party has accomplished the result sought in the litigation, fees should be awarded for time spent even on unsuccessful legal theories.’’).

¶ 10 At oral argument, Marge’s counsel, Charles Stegall, argued that Ferris’ fee request failed to comply with Arizona Rule of Probate Procedure 33 as well as the standards adopted in Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.

¶ 18 The affidavit counsel for LLC filed with LLC’s application for attorney fees in accordance with Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., , shows the attorney fees requested were incurred after the original default judgment had been entered in its ultimately unsuccessful attempts to prevent Hodges from redeeming the property.

Generally, though, we find plaintiffs’ , especially where, as here, the case was to be retried, and plaintiffs were understandably wary of disclosing too much of their trial preparation and strategy through billing records.

eys’ fees expended on the contract claim, but also fees expended in litigating an ‘interwoven’ tort claim.” Ramsey Air Meds, 6 P.3d at 318; (“Attorney’s fees may be awarded under [§ 12-341.01(A)] for tort claims that are intertwined with contract claims.”); Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., (in cases where “one claim for relief may involve related legal theories,” “‘[m]uch of counsel’s time [may] be devoted generally to the litigation as a whole, making it difficult to divide the hours expend

See Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc.

See Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc.

¶ 27 In Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., , the supreme court explained that, “[w]here claims could have been litigated separately, fees should not be awarded for those unsuccessful separate and distinct claims which are unrelated to the claim upon which the [requesting party] prevailed.” We agree with Santa Fe that its clai

¶ 118 Security Title objects to the second category of fees, citing Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., , for the proposition that First American and Pope cannot be awarded fees for work related to sanctions they asked for but were not granted.

In Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., , we held that an attorney’s affidavit supporting a fee application should include “the type of legal services provided, the date the service was provided, the attorney providing the service ...

¶ 20 In this instance, the Association submitted two fee applications consistent with the requirements set forth in Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., -89 , -33 (App.1983), thereby establishing its prima facie entitle *271 ment to fees in the amount requested.

See Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp., 196 Ariz. at 10, ¶ 21 , 992 P.2d at 10 (requirements set forth in Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., -89 , -33 (App.1983), inapplicable to expert witness fee awards).