Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bed Mart, Inc. v. Kelley, 45 P.3d 1219.

30 citing documents.

REDKEY v. CLARKE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
REDKEY v. CLARKE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Bed Mart, ¶ 24 (App. 2002).
Schumacher v. Hargrave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Schumacher v. Hargrave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
See ARCAP 21(a)(2); see also Bed Mart, ¶ 24 (App. 2002).
1st Choice v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
1st Choice v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Bed Mart, ¶ 24 (App. 2002) (“[ARCAP 21] only sets forth the procedure for requesting fees; it does not provide a substantive basis for a fee award.”).
A.L. v. J.B. G.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
A.L. v. J.B. G.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See ARCAP 21(a)(2); Bed Mart, ¶ 24 (App. 2002).
Shufeldt v. Nextcare Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shufeldt v. Nextcare Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
’s offices), overruled on other grounds by Farber, with Farber, 194 Ariz. at 365, 371 (striking similar covenant); see also Compass Bank v. Hartley, 430 F. Supp. 2d 973, 980 (D. Ariz. 2006) (rejecting, in issuing preliminary injunction, challenge to covenant prohibiting conduct within 25-mile radius of former employer’s offices) (applying Arizona law); Bed Mart, Inc. v. Kelley, 373 -74 ¶¶17-18 (App. 2002) (rejecting challenge to covenant prohibiting conduct within 10-mile radius of former employ
Deutsche Bank v. Bilyea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Deutsche Bank v. Bilyea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
CYPRESS ON SUNLAND HOMEOWNERS, ASS'N. v. Orlandini 257 P.3d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
CYPRESS ON SUNLAND HOMEOWNERS, ASS'N. v. Orlandini 257 P.3d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Estate of Hanscome v. Evergreen at Foothills, L.L.C. 254 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Estate of Hanscome v. Evergreen at Foothills, L.L.C. 254 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See, ¶ 39 , ¶ 22 , -82, 1125 , -05 (App.2007); Bed Mart, 1124 , ¶ 28 , Country Mut.
Chopin v. Chopin 232 P.3d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Chopin v. Chopin 232 P.3d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Bed Mart, ¶ 24 , (denying fees request pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21 because “it does not provide a substantive basis for a fee award”).
Braillard v. Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Braillard v. Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Nat’l Title Co., see also Bed Mart, (request for fees under Rule 21, Ariz. R. Civ.
Kadlec v. Dorsey 223 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Kadlec v. Dorsey 223 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
But § 12-331 pertains to costs, not attorney fees, and the Dorseys’ request for fees under Rule 21 is insufficient because the rule “does not provide a substantive basis for a fee award.” Bed Mart
Fidelity National Title v. Town of Marana Bronson Nessinger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Fidelity National Title v. Town of Marana Bronson Nessinger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See Bed Mart, (request for appellate fees under Rule 21(c), Ariz. R. Civ.
Malad, Inc. v. Miller 199 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Malad, Inc. v. Miller 199 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
The Rule “only sets forth the procedure for requesting fees; it does not provide a substantive basis for a fee award.” Bed Mart, ¶ 24