Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Price v. Price, 654 P.2d 46.

80 citing documents.

Hoffman v. Greenberg 767 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Hoffman v. Greenberg 767 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
White v. Mitchell 759 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
White v. Mitchell 759 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
We find that appellants’ appeal was not frivolous, , and therefore deny the request.
Willow Creek Leasing, Inc. v. Bartzen 742 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Willow Creek Leasing, Inc. v. Bartzen 742 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
we noted: [A]n appeal should be held to be frivolous only when it is prosecuted for an improper motive—to harass the respon *343 dent or delay the effect of an adverse judgment—or when it indisputably has no merit—when any reasonable attorney would agree that the appeal is totally and complet
Shamrock Foods Co. v. City of Phoenix 757 P.2d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Shamrock Foods Co. v. City of Phoenix 757 P.2d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Molever v. Roush 732 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Molever v. Roush 732 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Allen v. Southwest Salt Co. 718 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Allen v. Southwest Salt Co. 718 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Appellees rely upon this court’s
City of Phoenix v. Marathon Steel Co. 722 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
City of Phoenix v. Marathon Steel Co. 722 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
we stated that an appeal is frivolous when it is prosecuted for an improper motive—to harass the respondent or delay the effect of an adverse judgment— or when it indisputably has no merit— when any reasonable attorney would agree that the appeal is totally and completely without merit.
In re the Appeal in Pima County, Mental Health No. MH-254-3-85 706 P.2d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
In re the Appeal in Pima County, Mental Health No. MH-254-3-85 706 P.2d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Schilz v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA CTY. 695 P.2d 1103 Ariz. 1985
Schilz v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA CTY. 695 P.2d 1103 Ariz. 1985
291 , (no jurisdiction to award child custody when father and child lived in Colorado); , (no jurisdiction to decree settlement of property in foreign state when no personal jurisdiction over spouse).
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commission 693 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commission 693 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Hansen v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 685 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Hansen v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 685 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Respondent Foster requests attorneys’ fees for the reason that this appeal is frivolous and filed for an “ulterior motive.” Foster does not specify the motive, but in any case we think this appeal is not one that “indisputably has no merit — when any reasonable attorney would agree that the appeal is totally and completely without merit.”
Thompson v. Sun City Community Hospital, Inc. 688 P.2d 605 Ariz. 1984
Thompson v. Sun City Community Hospital, Inc. 688 P.2d 605 Ariz. 1984
A frivolous issue is one that “indisputably has no merit — when any reasonable attorney would agree that the appeal is totally and completely without merit.” , , 944 n. 1 (1984), , 114 n. 1, , 48 n. 1 (App.1982).
Evans v. Arthur 678 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1984
Evans v. Arthur 678 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1984
(quoting In re Marriage of Flaherty, 31 Cal.3d 637, 650 , 183 Cal.
Adams v. Valley Nat. Bank of Ariz. 678 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Adams v. Valley Nat. Bank of Ariz. 678 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
we held that a frivolous appeal is one wholly without merit or brought for an improper motive.
Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc. 673 P.2d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc. 673 P.2d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983