Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Steer Ex Rel. K & K Cable, Inc. v. Eggleston, 47 P.3d 1161.

26 citing documents.

Anderson v. State Farm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Anderson v. State Farm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
§ 12–341.01 because we find that fees for the confirmation can be awarded under the Uniform [Arbitration] Act itself."); ¶ 23 (App. 2002) ("We are permitted under A.R.S.
McGill v. Ball Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
McGill v. Ball Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 7 (App. 2011) ( ¶ 16 (App. 2002)).
Norton v. Phonejockey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Norton v. Phonejockey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
The expense-sharing statute is “an application of the equitable common fund doctrine.” ¶ 11 (App. 2002) (construing analogous Arizona statute governing limited partnerships).
State v. Jones 306 P.3d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Jones 306 P.3d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Atreus Communities Group v. Stardust Development, Inc. 277 P.3d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Atreus Communities Group v. Stardust Development, Inc. 277 P.3d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Smith v. Pinnamaneni 254 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Smith v. Pinnamaneni 254 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Nolan v. Kenner 250 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Nolan v. Kenner 250 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 145 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 145 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶ 28 “[A]n arbitrator’s decision on questions of fact and law is generally final.”
Valder Law Offices v. Keenan Law Firm 129 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Valder Law Offices v. Keenan Law Firm 129 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
See Burke, 206 Ariz. at 273, ¶ 9 , 77 P.3d at 448 (“The common fund doctrine is based on an equitable principle of allocating attorney fees among the benefitted group, not shifting them to the opposing party.”); , Mountain W. Farm Bureau Mut.
Bridgestone/Firestone North America Tire, L.L.C. v. Naranjo 79 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Bridgestone/Firestone North America Tire, L.L.C. v. Naranjo 79 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Johnson v. Mohave County 78 P.3d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Johnson v. Mohave County 78 P.3d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Burke v. Az State Retirement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Burke v. Az State Retirement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
P.3d 1161 (App. 2002); Mountain W. Farm Bureau Mut.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by