Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite King v. Titsworth, 212 P.3d 935.

26 citing documents.

KRISHNAN v. KRISHNAN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
KRISHNAN v. KRISHNAN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Drh Enterprises v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Drh Enterprises v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Starr Surplus v. Transwestern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Starr Surplus v. Transwestern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Thommi v. Fisher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Thommi v. Fisher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
2 THOMMI, et al. v. FISHER, et al. Decision of the Court Ariz. Tile, -99, ¶ 35 (App. 2010)); ¶ 8 (App. 2009) (reviewing a party’s compliance with Rule 54(g) de novo) ( ¶ 5 (App. 2008)).
Halt v. Gama 360 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Halt v. Gama 360 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
in lieu of filing an answer, but who neglects to ask for fees at the time he files his motion to dismiss.”); , 600 ¶ 14
Honeywell v. Kilgore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Honeywell v. Kilgore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
4 Kilgore claims King is “inapplicable” as it addressed a party’s request for fees made for the first time after the close of pleadings and after the completion of trial and a ruling on the merits.
McQuality v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
McQuality v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Nunez v. Hon. porter/gordon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Nunez v. Hon. porter/gordon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Perry, 225 Ariz. at 51, ¶ 5, 234 P.3d at 619; ¶ 8, (noting that interpreting Civil Rule 54(g) is a question of law).
Quicken Loan v. Beale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Quicken Loan v. Beale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
C. loanDepot’s Attorney Fees ¶26 Quicken Loans also argues that the trial court’s award of attorney fees to loanDepot, as Intervenor, was error because (1) loanDepot failed to assert a claim for attorney fees in a pleading and was thus precluded from pursuing fees and (2) loanDepot was not a “successful party.” P.3d 935 (App. 2009), the trial court could not award attorney fees because the request for attorney fees was not made in the pleadings listed 10 QUICKEN LOAN v. BEALE, et al Decision of
Balestrieri v. Balestrieri 300 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Balestrieri v. Balestrieri 300 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Because David successfully moved to dismiss the complaint before filing an answer pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), he made no filing that Rule 7(a) denominates as a “pleading.” ¶ 11 , Salvatore contends that because David filed no pleading, he was not eligible for a fees award pursuant to Rule 54(g)(1).
Southwest Gas Corporation Taylor v. Grubb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Southwest Gas Corporation Taylor v. Grubb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(interpretation of Rule 54(g), Ariz. R. Civ.
LEVERAGED LAND COMPANY, LLC v. Hodges 232 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
LEVERAGED LAND COMPANY, LLC v. Hodges 232 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
AZTAR CORP. v. US Fire Ins. Co. 224 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
AZTAR CORP. v. US Fire Ins. Co. 224 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010