Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Fulton Homes Corp. v. BBP CONCRETE, 155 P.3d 1090.

52 citing documents.

Jamie Clem v. Pinal County, Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Jamie Clem v. Pinal County, Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
See, (providing that attorney-fee award under A.R.S.
Larry D. Spector v. Fitness & Sports Clubs, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Larry D. Spector v. Fitness & Sports Clubs, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
(costs on appeal to prevailing party).
Clementine v. Ruhorimbere Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Clementine v. Ruhorimbere Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Heritage v. Weinberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Heritage v. Weinberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(noting that adverse parties have "opposing positions or interests"); –72, ¶¶ 17–22 (App. 2007) (finding a third-party defendant and a plaintiff adverse for purposes of attorneys' fees awards even though the plaintiff did not assert a claim directly against the third party); Nationwide Res.
Berghoff v. Gerdts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Berghoff v. Gerdts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sandoval v. Oxford Financial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sandoval v. Oxford Financial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
–25, ¶¶ 25–27 (App. 2009); ¶¶ 23–25 (App. 2007).
Risas Holdings v. Tackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Risas Holdings v. Tackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Aubuchon v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Aubuchon v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 9 (App. 2007) (“We will affirm an award with a reasonable basis even if the trial court gives no reasons for its decision regarding whether to award fees.”).
Yard v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Yard v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 15 (App. 2007) ("no single factor requires or prohibits an award of fees"); State Farm Mut.
Riedel v. Fuentes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Riedel v. Fuentes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 9 (App. 2007) ("We will affirm an award with a reasonable basis even if the trial court gives no reasons for its decision regarding whether to award fees.").
Southwest v. Sbbi, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Southwest v. Sbbi, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Sonoran v. Bank of the West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Sonoran v. Bank of the West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Amberwood v. Swann's Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Amberwood v. Swann's Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
McDivitt v. Geico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
McDivitt v. Geico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
We will uphold the superior court’s decision if any reasonable basis supports it, ¶ 9 (App. 2007), viewing the record in the light most favorable to sustaining the award.
Lee v. ING Investment Management, LLC 377 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lee v. ING Investment Management, LLC 377 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Hawk, 223 Ariz. at 100, ¶ 21 (“Though reasonable minds may have balanced the factors differently, we cannot say that the superior court’s decision was an abuse of discretion.”); ¶ 9 (explaining that the court “will affirm an award with a reasonable basis even if the trial court gives no reasons for its decision”).
Stebbins v. Sullivan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Stebbins v. Sullivan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“We will affirm an award with a reasonable basis even if the trial court gives no reasons for its 6 STEBBINS v. SULLIVAN Decision of the Court decision regarding whether to award fees.” ¶ 9 (App. 2007).
Deepwater v. Wells Fargo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Deepwater v. Wells Fargo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See, P.3d 1090 (App. 2007) (determining that third party defendant prevailed in suit when original plaintiff abandoned the claims against him).
tempe/chavez v. state/brnovich 351 P.3d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
tempe/chavez v. state/brnovich 351 P.3d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Honeywell v. Kilgore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Honeywell v. Kilgore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Schoenberg v. Rm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Schoenberg v. Rm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Wells Fargo v. Crown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Wells Fargo v. Crown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
§ 12-341.01(A) (stating an award of fees is discretionary; “the court may award the successful party” fees) (emphasis added); ¶ 10, (stating that one of the factors a court should consider in awarding fees under A.R.S.
Hawk v. PC Village Ass'n 309 P.3d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Hawk v. PC Village Ass'n 309 P.3d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Assyia v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 273 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Assyia v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 273 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
“[T]he trial court has súbstantial discretion to determine who is a ‘successful party.’ ” ¶ 25 , (citing Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Constr.
Dooley Corvallas Development Corp. v. O'Brien 244 P.3d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Dooley Corvallas Development Corp. v. O'Brien 244 P.3d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 9 , (trial court has discretion to determine who is the prevailing party); Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., , ("Where a party has accomplished the result sought in the litigation, fees should be awarded for time spent even on un
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