Cited by

Other cases, however, have stated that the “totality of the litigation” and “percentage of success” tests may be applied “in a case involving multiple claims and varied success.” Berry v. 352 E. Va., L.L.C., -14 ¶ 22 (App. 2011) (citation omitted); accord Murphy Farrell Dev., LLLP v. Sourant, 2 The record suggests that, in awarding fees and costs to Rental Renovators, the superior court had concerns about Gipson’s approach to the litigation, noting she “took unreasonable positions throughout the

Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶ 17 (App. 2011).

See Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶ 23 (App. 2011) (“When a case involves several claims based upon different facts or legal theories .

Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶ 21 (App. 2011).

Sys., but we will not disturb a court’s successful party designation for the purpose of awarding fees if a reasonable basis for it exists, Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, LLC

Berry v. 352 E. Va., L.L.C., ¶ 17 (App. 2011).

– 71 (1985); (contract fee provisions enforced by their terms); Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., –14, ¶¶ 21–24 (App. 2011) (discretionary “prevailing party” assessment).

Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, LLC, ¶ 17 (App. 2011).

Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶ 21 (App. 2011).

Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶ 24 (App. 2011).

Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶ 21 (App. 2011) (court asked to award fees has sole discretion to determine prevailing party).

Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., –14, ¶¶ 22–24 (App. 2011).

Mgmt., LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2016) (“Partial success does not preclude a party from ‘prevailing’ and receiving a discretionary award of attorneys’ fees”) (quotation omitted) (quoting Berry v. 352 E. Va., LLC, ¶¶ 23–24 (App. 2011)).

Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶ 31 (App. 2011).

oper in cases involving multiple claims and varied success, the superior court employed a “totality of the litigation” analysis and considered the outcome of all claims in making its 7 RISAS HOLDINGS, et al. v. TACKETT, et al. Decision of the Court determination of fees and costs.3 See Berry v. 352 E. Va., L.L.C., -14, ¶¶ 22-23 (App. 2011).

7 GUIRGUIS, et al. v. PATEL, et al. Decision of the Court of attorneys’ fees’; the superior court may find that a party is the successful party even when the recovery it obtains is ‘significantly reduced.’” Lee, 240 Ariz. at 161, ¶ 10 (quoting Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶¶ 23–24 (App. 2011)).

Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, LLC, ¶ 31 (App. 2011).

See Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶ 35 (App. 2011) (“[I]n our discretion, we deny [the party’s] request for attorneys’ fees but award its costs.”).

Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶ 17 (App. 2011).

Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., , 13 ¶ 17, , 788 (App. 2011).

Substantial deference to the superior court is appropriate “because that court is better able to evaluate the parties’ positions during the litigation and to determine which has prevailed.” Berry v. 352 E. Va., L.L.C., ¶ 22 (App. 2011) (citation omitted); see also Associated Indem.

Berry v. 352 E. Va., L.L.C., ¶ 31 (App. 2011).

7 SOUTHWEST v. SBBI, INC., et al. Decision of the Court Virginia, L.L.C., ¶¶ 23-24 (App. 2011)).

Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶ 17 (App. 2011).

See Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶ 24 (App. 2011) ("Partial success does not preclude a party from 'prevailing' and receiving a discretionary award of attorneys' fees.").