Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wilcox v. Waldman, 744 P.2d 444.

30 citing documents.

Little Wing Ranch v. Carroll Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Little Wing Ranch v. Carroll Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
§ 12-341.01(B).” see also Orfaly v. Tucson Symphony Soc’y, ¶ 27 (App. 2004) (“[T]hat some portions of appellees’ attorney fee expense was covered by insurance does not preclude the fee awards to appellees or otherwise establish any abuse of discretion in those awards.”).
Thompson v. Burton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Thompson v. Burton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Starr Surplus v. Transwestern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Starr Surplus v. Transwestern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
19 STARR SURPLUS v. TRANSWESTERN Decision of the Court consider such fact, i.e., that someone else may be obligated to bear the expense, but we find the weight to be accorded that fact to be wholly within the trial court’s discretion.” (citations omitted)); (“[T]he fact that fees may ultimately be borne by third parties pursuant to an insurance or indemnity agreement does not prevent the successful party from meeting the requirements of A.R.S.
Blackhawk v. McComb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Blackhawk v. McComb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Catalina Foothills Ass’n v. White
Chasan v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Chasan v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“[T]he fact that fees may ultimately be borne by third parties .
Tessler v. Progressive Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Tessler v. Progressive Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 32 (App. 2004) (); (“The trial court’s decision will be upheld unless there exists no reasonable basis in the record upon which its decision could have been made.”).
Smith v. Almida Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Smith v. Almida Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Nicoletti v. Westcor, Inc., -43, -33 (1982); Hicks v. Superstition Mountain Post No. 9399, (Arizona courts generally follow Restatement unless rules, statutes, or caselaw have adopted contrary positions).
Powers v. Taser International, Inc. 174 P.3d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Powers v. Taser International, Inc. 174 P.3d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
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
See Catalina Foothills Ass’n
Potter v. U.S. Specialty Insurance Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Potter v. U.S. Specialty Insurance Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Burns v. Davis 993 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Burns v. Davis 993 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
We do this because “[a]l-though the Arizona courts generally follow the Restatement of the law, they do not do so if a different rule has been pronounced in prior court decisions or legislative enactments.”
In Re Naarden Trust 990 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In Re Naarden Trust 990 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
¶ 5 Similarly, , a dentist entered into an asset purchase agreement to acquire a dental practice.
Moore v. Kieber 990 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Moore v. Kieber 990 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
¶ 5 Similarly, , a dentist entered into an asset purchase agreement to acquire a dental practice.
Premier Financial Services. v. Citibank 912 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Premier Financial Services. v. Citibank 912 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
this Court concluded that exceptions exist to the rule stated in Burch.
Chavarria v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 798 P.2d 1343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Chavarria v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 798 P.2d 1343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990