Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Levy v. Alfaro, 160 P.3d 1201.

32 citing documents.

Maricopa v. Hon. Ainley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Maricopa v. Hon. Ainley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Hasse v. Avondale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Hasse v. Avondale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
at 46, ¶ 58; ¶ 14 (App. 2007) (“Recoverable fees include the witness’s time testifying at trial, as well as time spent preparing to testify.”).
Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Berry v. 352 E. Va., L.L.C., ¶ 31 (App. 2011) ( ¶ 6 (App. 2007)).
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
Cuellar, 235 Ariz. at 403, ¶ 14; ¶ 12 (App. 2007) (“Rule 68 is intended to encourage settlement and avoid protracted litigation.”); Wersch, 192 Ariz. at 102 (when “summary judgment had already resolved the matter,” there was no need for the parties to reach agreement under Rule 68).
Villa v. Furar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Villa v. Furar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Under Arizona law, “[a] sanction of ‘reasonable expert witness fees’ under Rule 68(d) is not limited to those fees incurred for trial testimony, but includes all ‘reasonable expert witness fees’ incurred after the offer of judgment was made.” ¶ 14
Boyle v. Ford Motor Company 334 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Boyle v. Ford Motor Company 334 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Abel Cuellar v. Megan G. Vettorel 332 P.3d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Abel Cuellar v. Megan G. Vettorel 332 P.3d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(award of sanctions pursuant to Rule 68(g) is mandatory).
Arellano v. Primerica Life Insurance 332 P.3d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Arellano v. Primerica Life Insurance 332 P.3d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Marisol Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles 310 P.3d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Marisol Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles 310 P.3d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Levy v. Alfaro, 215 Ariz. 443, ¶ 8
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 279 P.3d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 279 P.3d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Metzler v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, Inc. 279 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Metzler v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, Inc. 279 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(purpose of Rule 68 to avoid protracted litigation).
Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C. 261 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C. 261 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
We review de novo the trial court's interpretation of the Rule, ¶ 6 , and consider the Rule’s plain language before resorting to other rules of construction.
Carol Ann Potter Debra Joy Merryman v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Potter v. Vanderpool 240 P.3d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Carol Ann Potter Debra Joy Merryman v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Potter v. Vanderpool 240 P.3d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Scottsdale Insurance v. Cendejas 205 P.3d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Scottsdale Insurance v. Cendejas 205 P.3d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009