Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., 673 P.2d 927.

368 citing documents.

State Ex Rel. Goddard v. Gravano 108 P.3d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Appellant complains that the State’s supporting affidavits fail to meet the standard of Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.
Orfaly, George, Albrecht, Reid v. Tucson Symphony Society... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Orfaly, George, Albrecht, Reid v. Tucson Symphony Society... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
¶22 Citing Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., P.2d 927 (App. 1983), appellants also contend appellees’ fee applications had inadequate time records, contained only broad summaries (or “block billing”) of work performed, were inconsistent with each other, and reflected unnecessary “duplication of effort.” The nature
Burke v. Az State Retirement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Burke v. Az State Retirement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
We therefore vacate the trial court’s attorney fee award and remand the matter for it to determine a reasonable award by applying appropriate fee-shifting guidelines as set forth in Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., P.2d 927 (App. 1983).
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 73 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 73 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Relying on Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., , Arizona Water asserts that an appropriate hourly fee in public-rights litigation should mirror “the reasonable hourly rate prevailing in the community for similar work.” Id.
Ramsey Air Meds, L.L.C. v. Cutter Aviation, Inc. 6 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Ramsey Air Meds, L.L.C. v. Cutter Aviation, Inc. 6 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.
Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 992 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 992 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Restated, ADOR’s issues are as follows: (1) on remand from our reversal of the tax court’s ruling limiting the amount of expert witness fees, is Cyprus barred by the mandate or by *7 laches from seeking additional expert witness fees, and (2) did the tax court abuse its discretion in determining that Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., , does not control expert witness fee requests and in finding that the additional expert witness fees were sufficiently substantiated and reasonable?
National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Greene 985 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Greene 985 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
National Union, as the successful party in this action, may recover its attorneys’ fees on appeal by complying with Rule 21 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure and our decision in Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.
Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co. of Arizona, Inc. v. McKinney 946 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co. of Arizona, Inc. v. McKinney 946 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Because McKinney is the prevailing party in this appeal, in our discretion we grant his fees on appeal, subject to compliance with Rule 21 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure and with Schweigef v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.
ABC Supply, Inc. v. Edwards 952 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
ABC Supply, Inc. v. Edwards 952 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
ABC argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not correctly applying the guidelines as set forth in Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., , for recovery of attorneys’ fees pursuant to a contractual provision.
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
Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., , see also Trus Joist Corp. v. Safeco Ins.
In Re Shannon 876 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1994
In Re Shannon 876 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1994
-86 , -53 (App.1992) ( , because fees awarded in Lacer were statutorily limited to “amount paid or agreed to be paid”); see also Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., , (stating in dicta that fees awarded to public sector attorneys should be measured by reasonable hourly rate prevailing in community for similar work).
Matter of Conservatorship of Fallers 889 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Matter of Conservatorship of Fallers 889 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Hirseh counters that the court must make a determination of the reasonableness of the fee by balancing the considerations established in Swartz , ER 1.5(a), and Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., -88 , -32 (App.1983).
City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc. 877 P.2d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc. 877 P.2d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Although Fann did prevail on the issue of arbitrability, and the arbitrator rendered a decision in favor of Fann in an amount over $23,000, Cottonwood contends the pump submittal claim constituted a “separate and distinct” claim and Fann should not receive fees attributable to that claim under Schweiger v. Chine, Doll Restaurant, Inc.
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 868 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 868 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Cf. Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., , (counsel should provide detailed affidavit to support fee request).
Chase Bank of Arizona v. Acosta 880 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Chase Bank of Arizona v. Acosta 880 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Because neither affidavit totally comports with Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., , we find no abuse of discretion in the reduction of fees awarded for services in the superior court.
S & R PROPERTIES v. Maricopa County 875 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
S & R PROPERTIES v. Maricopa County 875 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., , (prevailing parties are entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees for every service that would have been undertaken by a reasonable and prudent lawyer).
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
London v. Green Acres *332 Trust, , Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., , 186 n. 5, , 930 n. 5 (App.1983).
AROK Construction Co. v. Indian Construction Services 848 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
AROK Construction Co. v. Indian Construction Services 848 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
21 and in compliance with Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Tocco 845 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Tocco 845 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
This method of constructing a reasonable fee, multiplying the hours expended by a reasonable hourly rate of compensation, is known as the “lodestar.” Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., , 186 n. 5, , 930 n. 5 (App.1983).
State v. Mecham 844 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Mecham 844 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
The Mechams argue that the fee award “runs contrary to the basic rationale of the seminal decision” in Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.
Schweber Electronics v. National Semiconductor Corp. 850 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Schweber Electronics v. National Semiconductor Corp. 850 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Schweber is directed to comply with Rule 21, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure and Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.
Hohokam Resources v. Maricopa County 821 P.2d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Hohokam Resources v. Maricopa County 821 P.2d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc. Maricopa County argues that the taxpayer’s petition for attorneys’ fees was insufficient under Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., , because it failed to state the agreed hourly billing rates, presented only broad summaries of the work done and time expended, and did not address the four factors listed in Schweiger as bearing on the determination of a reasonable attorney’s fee.
Betancourt v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Fund 823 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Betancourt v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Fund 823 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
The Fund alternatively maintains that the affidavit in support of Betancourt’s motion for attorneys’ fees was inadequate under Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.
Patterson v. Bianco 805 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Patterson v. Bianco 805 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Civ.App.P., and Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.
Exodyne Properties, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 798 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Exodyne Properties, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 798 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
It awarded $5492.69 in attorney’s fees and cited Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., , on which the City had relied in arguing for the two-thirds reduction in fees based on the degree of Exodyne’s success below.
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley 790 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by