Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN RANCH COMMUNITY ASS'N v. Simons, 165 P.3d 667.
- Nunez v. Flores Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-
Nunez v. Flores
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Ass’n v. Simons, ¶ 13 (App. 2007), we do not do so here, because Flores raises no debatable issues.
- Sedillo v. Cooley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Sedillo v. Cooley
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Ass'n, ¶ 13 (App. 2007) (similar).
- Luque v. Ocampo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Luque v. Ocampo
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Ass’n v. Simons, ¶ 13 (App. 2007) (citing cases).
- Heritage v. Pacheco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Heritage v. Pacheco
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Ass'n, 270–71, ¶¶ 4, 16–22 (App. 2007) (finding that, even when an attorney-fees provision entitles the prevailing party to "all attorney fees and court costs," fees that are "obviously" or "clearly excessive" will not be awarded).
- Luna v. Peinado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Luna v. Peinado
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Ass’n, ¶ 13 (App. 2007) (similar).
- Mayberry v. Stambaugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Mayberry v. Stambaugh
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Ass'n, ¶ 13 (App. 2007) (deciding we would not "treat the failure to file an answering brief as a confession of error .
- Anthem Parkside v. Chabrowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Anthem Parkside v. Chabrowski
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Ass’n v. Simons, ¶ 14 (App. 2007); A.R.S.
- Haz-Mat v. Oxnard Commerceplex Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Haz-Mat v. Oxnard Commerceplex
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Ass’n, ¶ 13 (App. 2007) (explaining this court has discretion whether to find the failure to address an argument as a confession of error).
- In Re the Marriage of Rojas 530 P.3d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
-
In Re the Marriage of Rojas
530 P.3d 1167
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Ass’n v. Simons, (“Unlike fees awarded under A.R.S.
- Little Wing Ranch v. Carroll Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Little Wing Ranch v. Carroll
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Ass’n, –71, ¶ 20 (App. 2007) (allowing fee recovery under a contractual provision because the applicant “submitted .
- Tempe v. Graystar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Tempe v. Graystar
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Ass’n v. Simons, ¶ 14 (App. 2007).
- Yam Capital v. Bailey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Yam Capital v. Bailey
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Ass’n v. Simons, ¶ 16 (App. 2007).
- Armenta v. armenta/acuna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Armenta v. armenta/acuna
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Ass’n v. Simons, ¶ 13 (App. 2007).
- Luvisi v. Ellison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Luvisi v. Ellison
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Ass’n, ¶ 13 (App. 2007).
- Montemurro v. Montemurro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Montemurro v. Montemurro
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ass’n v. Simons, ¶ 13 (App. 2007).
- Malik v. Trinidade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Malik v. Trinidade
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ass’n v. Simons, ¶ 13 (App. 2007).
- Ray and Lindsay v. Gilbert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Ray and Lindsay v. Gilbert
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ass’n v. Simons, ¶ 14 (App. 2007)).
- Yurcaba, III v. Yurcaba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Yurcaba, III v. Yurcaba
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ass’n v. Simons, ¶ 13 (App. 2007).
- Mesa v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Mesa v. Davis
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ass’n v. Simons, –71, ¶¶ 20–21 (App. 2007) (noting that, when awarding attorney’s fees under a contractual provision for the award of “all” fees incurred, the superior court’s “discretion is more narrowly circumscribed” to only reducing those fees shown to be “clearly excessive”).
- 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.”).
- Felder v. Felder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Felder v. Felder
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Ass’n v. Simons, ¶ 13 (App. 2007).
- Metro Phx Bank v. Rpm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Metro Phx Bank v. Rpm
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Generally, contractual attorney fee provisions are enforced according to their terms, ¶ 10 (App. 2019), although a provision mandating an unreasonable fee award will not be enforced, McDowell Mountain Ranch Community Ass’n v. Simons, ¶ 16 (App. 2007).
- Vega v. Cipres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Vega v. Cipres
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Ass’n, ¶ 13 (App. 2007).
- Bramnick v. Maricopa County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Bramnick v. Maricopa County
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Ass’n, ¶ 13 (App. 2007).
- Woensdregt v. Handyman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Woensdregt v. Handyman
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Ass'n, ¶ 14 (App. 2007); (“Unlike fees awarded under A.R.S.