Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bennett v. Appaloosa Horse Club, 35 P.3d 426.

26 citing documents.

Henderson v. Hon. moskowitz/sullivan Ariz. 2025
Henderson v. Hon. moskowitz/sullivan Ariz. 2025
Larry D. Spector v. Fitness & Sports Clubs, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Larry D. Spector v. Fitness & Sports Clubs, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
(costs on appeal to prevailing party).
Yam Capital v. Bailey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Yam Capital v. Bailey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
The challenging party “must meet a heavy burden of proof, even when the designated forum is a geographically remote location.” ¶ 20 (App. 2001).
Rt Automotive v. Westlake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Rt Automotive v. Westlake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 11 (App. 2001); ¶ 7 (App. 2017) (reviewing a superior court’s legal ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings de novo).2 ¶8 Fifty years ago, the United States Supreme Court held forum selection clauses presumptivel
Risas Holdings v. Tackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Risas Holdings v. Tackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Ass’n, ¶ 14 (App. 2007) (internal quotations omitted); ¶ 26 (App. 2001) (“The awarding of attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party pursuant to a contract between the parties is mandatory.”).
Dunn v. Fastmed Urgent Care PC 424 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Dunn v. Fastmed Urgent Care PC 424 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Bennett v. Appaloosa Horse Club , , 375, ¶ 11, , 429 (App. 2001).
Tucson Lot 4, LLC v. Sunquest Information Systems, Inc. 385 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Tucson Lot 4, LLC v. Sunquest Information Systems, Inc. 385 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Sierra Tucson, Inc. v. Bergin Ex Rel. County of Pima 372 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Sierra Tucson, Inc. v. Bergin Ex Rel. County of Pima 372 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
(enforceability of forum selection clause is reviewed de 1 Despite its claim to the contrary in its petition for special action, Sierra Tucson did not move to change venue based on A.R.S.
Russo v. Barger 366 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Russo v. Barger 366 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. City of Peoria, ¶ 6 (App. 1999) (appellate court reviews legal rulings based on undisputed facts de novo); ¶ 11 (App. 2001) (enforceability of forum selection clause is reviewed de novo).
Cft v. Le Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cft v. Le Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Castle v. Barrett-Jackson Auction Co., LLC 276 P.3d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Castle v. Barrett-Jackson Auction Co., LLC 276 P.3d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
ectly or indirectly out of the condition of the [Vehicle] or any alleged representations concerning the [Vehicle].” Castle also agreed that if he did not comply, he would “reimburse Barrett-Jackson for all costs, expenses and fees, including attorney fees, in defense of such claims.” Because we have no discretion to deny an award mandated by the parties’ contract, ¶ 26 , we award Barrett-Jackson its reasonable attorney fees and costs on appeal, upon its compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appe
Dessarollo Immobiliario Y Negocios Industriales De Alta Tecnologia De Hermosillo v. Kader Holdings Company Limited Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Dessarollo Immobiliario Y Negocios Industriales De Alta Tecnologia De Hermosillo v. Kader Holdings Company Limited Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
10 selection clause de novo.7
Schoneberger v. Oelze 96 P.3d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Schoneberger v. Oelze 96 P.3d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 11 , (enforceability of forum selection clause subject to de novo review).