DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Connor v. Cal-Az Properties, Inc., 668 P.2d 896.

42 citing documents.

  • Stucky v. Tjc Training Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Stucky v. Tjc Training Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    See, ¶ 9 (App. 2012) (citing Connor v. Cal-Az Props, Inc., ).1 But the superior court also based its award on A.R.S.
  • McGill v. Ball Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • McGill v. Ball Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    (holding an attorney could recover fees when the attorney represented an investment partnership that could not represent itself but in which the attorney owned a majority interest because he was acting for the benefit of others and himself) (citing Connor v. Cal-Az Props., Inc., ).
  • Lavicka v. Lavicka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Lavicka v. Lavicka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    See Connor v. Cal–Az Props., Inc., disagreed with on other grounds by Am.
  • American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 396 P.3d 600 Ariz. 2017
  • American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 396 P.3d 600 Ariz. 2017
    so Geller v. Lesk, 230 Ariz, 624, 627 ¶ 9, (stating that parties’ contractual attorney fee provision, “not the statute,” governs an award of fees); , 418 n.2, , 1242 n.2 (App. 1995) (stating that “when a contract has an attorney’s fee provision it controls to the exclusion of the statute”); Connor v. Cal-Az Properties, Inc., , (stating that “§ 12-341.01 is not to be considered” when parties’ contract provides conditions under which attorney fees may be recovered).
  • Mirchandani v. Bmo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Mirchandani v. Bmo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    We deny Mirchandani’s request for attorneys’ fees on appeal both because he appeared pro per, Connor v. Cal-Az Props., Inc., and because he has not prevailed on appeal.
  • Cioppa v. Pataky Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Cioppa v. Pataky Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Connor v. Cal-Az Props., Inc., (“[A] party who represents himself in litigation has no right to be compensated by the payment of attorneys’ fees because of the absence of an attorney-client relationship.”).
  • Jackson White v. Dos Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Jackson White v. Dos Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶6 The main thrust of DOS’ objections below and for this appeal is that, as a matter of substantive law and public policy, Jackson White is not entitled to seek or retain an award of attorneys’ fees incurred while representing itself, citing Connor v. Cal-Az Props., Inc., (reversing the award of attorneys’ fees to self- represented attorneys); see also Munger Chadwick, P.L.C.
  • Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    9 CASON v. CASON Decision of the Court Props., Inc., (“[T]he presence of an attorney- client relationship is a prerequisite to the recovery of attorneys’ fees.”).
  • Toth v. Brower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Toth v. Brower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Connor v. Cal-Az Props, Inc., (“[T]he presence of an attorney-client relationship is a prerequisite to the recovery of attorneys’ fees”).
  • Miller v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Miller v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See Connor v. Cal-Az Props., Inc., (recognizing that party filing pro per cannot claim attorneys’ fees due to the absence of an attorney-client relationship).
  • Munger Chadwick, P.L.C. v. Farwest Development & Construction of the Southwest, LLC 329 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • Munger Chadwick, P.L.C. v. Farwest Development & Construction of the Southwest, LLC 329 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    Connor v. Cal-AZ Props., Inc.
  • Hope v. Hope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Hope v. Hope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Connor v. Cal-Az Props., Inc.
  • Geller v. Lesk 285 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Geller v. Lesk 285 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    § 12-341.01(A) (“This section shall in no manner be construed as altering, prohibiting or restricting present or future contracts or statutes that may provide for attorney fees.”); Connor v. Cal-Az Props., Inc., , 55 (fee-shifting statute inapplicable given that parties contractually provided for attorneys’ fees) ( , ); , (“Sweis v. Chatwin did not hold that any ex
  • Encinas v. Mangum 54 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Encinas v. Mangum 54 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    2 *359 ¶ 8 The real parties in interest argue that Shepard’s actions constitute permissible self-representation, see Connor v. Cal-Az Prop., Inc., , because he has a future interest in his mother’s property.
  • Homebuilders Ass'n of Central Arizona v. City of Scottsdale 925 P.2d 1359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Homebuilders Ass'n of Central Arizona v. City of Scottsdale 925 P.2d 1359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    See Connor v. Cal-Az Properties, Inc., , (attorney-client relationship required for recovery of attorneys’ fees).
  • Lisa v. Strom 904 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Lisa v. Strom 904 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    See, Connor v. Cal-Az Properties, Inc., , Hunt Inv.
  • Jordan v. Burgbacher 883 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Jordan v. Burgbacher 883 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Sullivan v. State Land Department 838 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • Sullivan v. State Land Department 838 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • Hunt Investment Co. v. Eliot 742 P.2d 858 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • Hunt Investment Co. v. Eliot 742 P.2d 858 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    Connor v. Cal-Az Properties, Inc.
  • Formento v. Encanto Business Park 744 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • Formento v. Encanto Business Park 744 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
    Connor v. Cal-Az Properties, Inc.
  • Morga v. Friedlander 680 P.2d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Morga v. Friedlander 680 P.2d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984