DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Robert E. Mann Construction Co. v. Liebert Corp., 60 P.3d 708.

30 citing documents.

  • Weidert v. Precision Air Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Weidert v. Precision Air Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    ¶23 is “on all fours with the facts here” and shows that the fee award was in error.
  • Speaks v. Lyft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Speaks v. Lyft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶20 as a basis for awarding fees.
  • Thommi v. Fisher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Thommi v. Fisher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 10 (App. 2003) (“It is fair to require parties to request fees earlier in the litigation process so that both sides may accurately assess the risks and benefits of litigating versus settling.
  • Klesla v. Wittenberg 380 P.3d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Klesla v. Wittenberg 380 P.3d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    On this point we do not agree with, and do not follow Keg Restaurants Ariz., , , 2016 WL 3101794 (App. 2016)
  • Keg Restaurants Arizona, Inc. v. Jones 375 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Distinguished Keg Restaurants Arizona, Inc. v. Jones 375 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Keg relies on Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., , 13 ¶ 17, , 133 ¶ 12
  • Halt v. Gama 360 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Halt v. Gama 360 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    132 ¶ 5, Parker, 214 Ariz. at 497 -99 ¶¶ 12-22, 154 P.3d at 1043-45 (applying Mann).
  • Austin v. Chandler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Austin v. Chandler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    P.3d 708 (App. 2003) (failure to request trial or appellate fees on appeal precluded award on remand).
  • Four Seas v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Four Seas v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    § 12- 341.01 “based on the mere existence of a contract somewhere in the transaction.” 150 Ariz. at 335, 723 P.2d at 864; ¶ 15, (citing cases).
  • Balestrieri v. Balestrieri 300 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Balestrieri v. Balestrieri 300 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    ¶ 10 , (“It is fair to require parties to request fees earlier in the litigation process so that both sides may accurately assess the risks and benefits of litigating versus settling.”).
  • Murphy Farrell Development, LLLP v. Sourant 272 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Murphy Farrell Development, LLLP v. Sourant 272 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    ¶ 12 , (holding defendant waived request for fees pursuant to contract provision by only generally referring to fees in the answer and not citing the contract).
  • Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C. 261 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C. 261 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Raimey v. Ditsworth 261 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Raimey v. Ditsworth 261 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    ¶ 10 , (finding that a party’s failure to request attorneys’ fees pursuant to AR-CAP 21(c) precludes that party from seeking their pre-appellate fees after remand).
  • AD HOC COMMITTEE OF PARISHIONERS v. Reiss 224 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • AD HOC COMMITTEE OF PARISHIONERS v. Reiss 224 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • King v. Titsworth 212 P.3d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • King v. Titsworth 212 P.3d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    ¶¶ 5-6 , (holding that a request made in trial court on remand was untimely); -99, ¶¶ 14-22 , -45 (App.2007) (applying Mann).
  • Parker v. McNeill 154 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Parker v. McNeill 154 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    refused to award Parker fees and costs incurred for the pre-appeal and appeal work because she had faded to request “these fees and costs in the Court of Appeals under the appellate rules.” The court granted, however, Parker’s request for an award of fees incurred for post-mandate work, and d