Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lacer v. Navajo County, 687 P.2d 400.

76 citing documents.

Danko v. Ruiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Danko v. Ruiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
The court also found the case arose out of a purported contract, so Ruiz could request an award of attorneys’
Rli Insurance Company v. National Construction & Development, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Rli Insurance Company v. National Construction & Development, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
(party demonstrating absence of a contract sued upon entitled to attorney fees under § 12-341.01).
Crossroads v. Landwehr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Crossroads v. Landwehr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“A party is entitled to an award of its attorney’s fees under A.R.S.
State v. Series Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Series Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
HSBC v. Cluff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
HSBC v. Cluff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶37 to support their request for fees and costs.
Sirrah Enterprises LLC v. Wayne Wunderlich Et Ux 399 P.3d 89 Ariz. 2017
Sirrah Enterprises LLC v. Wayne Wunderlich Et Ux 399 P.3d 89 Ariz. 2017
(determining a party was entitled to fees “if judgment in its favor is based upon the absence of the contract sued upon”).
Day v. Armendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Day v. Armendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
The court also considered Day’s response opposing the request, as evidenced by the court’s decision to reduce Armendt’s awardable costs by the amount of the arbitration hearing transcript, as well as the sides’ failure to settle.18 On this record, the 18 Moreover, Day’s P.2d 400 (App. 1984), as a basis for requiring Armendt’s counsel to file an amended “Motion for Sanctions and Costs” is misplaced.
Rudinsky v. Harris 290 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Rudinsky v. Harris 290 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Thompson v. Corry 291 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Thompson v. Corry 291 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
§ 12-341.01(B) (providing fee award under § 12-341.01(A) cannot “exceed the amount paid or agreed to be paid” by the client); , (limiting county’s fee award to actual cost of defense in light of § 12-341.01(B)).
Barth v. Cochise County 138 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Barth v. Cochise County 138 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
11 County, P.2d 400 (App. 1984).
Premium Cigars Intern. v. Farmer-Butler-Leavitt Ins. 96 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Premium Cigars Intern. v. Farmer-Butler-Leavitt Ins. 96 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Insurance Agency requests an award of appellate attorneys' fees pursuant to § 12-341.01 because, it argues, it is entitled to fees on a breach-of-contract claim when the judgment is based upon the absence of a contract
Garcia v. Farmers Insurance 956 P.2d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Garcia v. Farmers Insurance 956 P.2d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Van Dyke v. Steinle 902 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Van Dyke v. Steinle 902 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lindsey 885 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lindsey 885 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Wagenseller v. Scotts *464 dale Memorial Hosp.
Arizona Board of Regents v. Main Street Mesa Associates 891 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Arizona Board of Regents v. Main Street Mesa Associates 891 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
section 12-348 “precludes an award of fees and other expenses (which would include costs).” , as authority for its decision.
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
Hill v. Chubb Life American Insurance 870 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Hill v. Chubb Life American Insurance 870 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(prevailing party awarded fees when judgment based on absence of contract).
Burris v. City of Phoenix 875 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Burris v. City of Phoenix 875 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas 857 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas 857 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Smith v. City of Phoenix 858 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Smith v. City of Phoenix 858 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
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
However, Tocco argues that this court’s , require that an attorney’s fee award to the State in an action in which it has been represented by the Attorney General’s office must be limited to the actual portions of the assistant attorneys general’s salaries allocable to prosecuting the case against him, plus overhead.
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
we rejected the reasonable-hourly rate standard for public sector attorneys.
Berthot v. Security Pacific Bank 823 P.2d 1326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Berthot v. Security Pacific Bank 823 P.2d 1326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 830 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 830 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Rogus v. Lords 804 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Rogus v. Lords 804 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991