Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Chaurasia v. General Motors Corp., 126 P.3d 165.

56 citing documents.

CHOPKO v. FIDELITY NATIONAL Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
CHOPKO v. FIDELITY NATIONAL Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Motors Corp., ¶ 43 (App. 2006) (“The legislature intended that the risk of paying the opposing party’s attorneys’ fees would encourage more careful analysis prior to filing suit.”).
Sean Bonnette v. Mg Financial Enterprises, LLC A & G Car Sales, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Sean Bonnette v. Mg Financial Enterprises, LLC A & G Car Sales, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Mago v. Arizona Escrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Mago v. Arizona Escrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Motors Corp., ¶ 24 (App. 2006).
Samra v. Patel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Samra v. Patel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Motors Corp., ¶ 24 (App. 2006).
Sandoval v. Oxford Financial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sandoval v. Oxford Financial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Motors Corp., ¶ 24 (App. 2006).
Majerle v. Zimmerman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Majerle v. Zimmerman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 25 (App. 2006) (“The contract must have some causal connection with the claim to justify an award of attorneys’ fees.”).
Designee v. Honda Aircraft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Designee v. Honda Aircraft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Corp., ¶ 47 (App. 2006).
Camelot v. Genaro's Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Camelot v. Genaro's Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Motors Corp., ¶ 24 (App. 2006).
Fields v. Eorp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Fields v. Eorp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Motors Corp., ¶ 43 (App. 2006).
Wheeler v. Deutsche Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Wheeler v. Deutsche Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Motors Corp., ¶ 24 (App. 2006) (citing Hampton v. Glendale Union High Sch.
Founding Fathers v. Asbcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Founding Fathers v. Asbcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Motors Corp., ¶ 5 (App. 2006).
Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Motors Corp., ¶¶ 25-27, (§ 12-341.01(A) permits recovery for non-contract action if action 10 In her reply brief, Ader also asserts that “the entry of judgment for Carolyn Felger, on community property grounds, was invalid because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter a judgment in
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. 375 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. 375 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 24 (App. 2006) (citing Hampton v. Glendale Union High Sch.
Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines 366 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines 366 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
McA Financial Group, Ltd. v. Enterprise Bank & Trust 341 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
McA Financial Group, Ltd. v. Enterprise Bank & Trust 341 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Motors Corp., 10Although an agency relationship might provide, in part, a basis for the exercise of jurisdiction, service of process is the mechanism by which the court acquires the power to enforce a judgment.
Abromovitz v. Red Eyed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Abromovitz v. Red Eyed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Motors Corp., ¶ 47, (citations omitted), and, in any event, the dispute between Galardi and MFLP arose out of various agreements between Galardi and Marchiol/MFLP, rather than REJ and Abromovitz.
Sands v. bill/zinkel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sands v. bill/zinkel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Motors Corp., ¶ 24, (citation omitted).
Porteadores Del Noroeste S.A. De, C.V. v. Industrial Commission 316 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Porteadores Del Noroeste S.A. De, C.V. v. Industrial Commission 316 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Motors Corp., ¶ 38 , (“Express preemeption exists when Congress has expressly stated its intention that state law be preempted.”).
Yanni, Thompson, Gunderson, Sayegh v. Tucker Plumbing, Inc., Brewer Enterprises, Inc. 312 P.3d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Yanni, Thompson, Gunderson, Sayegh v. Tucker Plumbing, Inc., Brewer Enterprises, Inc. 312 P.3d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Motors Corp., (“[W]e leave any further expansion of Richards to the Arizona Supreme Court.”).7 holding builders accountable for their work, as driving forces behind creating the privity exceptions in those cases.
Thompson v. Corry 291 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Thompson v. Corry 291 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Motors Corp., ¶ 24 , but we review the court’s calculation of the amount of fees for an abuse of discretion.
Hall v. READ DEVELOPMENT, INC. 274 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Hall v. READ DEVELOPMENT, INC. 274 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Motors Corp., ¶ 43 , Ariz. S.B.
Leflet v. Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance 247 P.3d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Leflet v. Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance 247 P.3d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
In Re Guardianship of Sleeth 244 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Guardianship of Sleeth 244 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Arizona Tile, L.L.C. v. Berger 224 P.3d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Arizona Tile, L.L.C. v. Berger 224 P.3d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Zeagler v. Buckley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Zeagler v. Buckley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Motors Corp., (purpose of § 12-341.01 to mitigate burden of litigation and “encourage more careful analysis”).