Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., 261 P.3d 784.

104 citing documents.

Bishara v. US Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bishara v. US Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶ 17 (App. 2011).
Bobrow v. Bobrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bobrow v. Bobrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See generally Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶ 31 (App. 2011) (discussing sanctions pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ.
Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Berry v. 352 E. Va., L.L.C., ¶ 31 (App. 2011).
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)).
Jokobov v. Dekermendjian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jokobov v. Dekermendjian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Berry v. 352 E. Virginia L.L.C., -14, ¶¶ 21- 22, -89 (App. 2011) (superior court is in the best position to determine which party has prevailed and a party can prevail even if it recovers less than the full amount initially sought).
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass'n 1, Inc. 382 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass'n 1, Inc. 382 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., -14, ¶ 22 (App. 2011) (stating trial court has discretion in case involving multiple claims to determine who is the “net winner” or who is the prevailing party based on the “totality of the litigation test.”).
Stefanovich v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Stefanovich v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mgmt., Inc., see also Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶ 21 (App. 2011).
Stern v. Stern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Stern v. Stern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Berry v. 352 E. Va., L.L.C., ¶ 21 (App. 2011).
Kimball v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kimball v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., –14, ¶¶ 21–22 (App. 2011).
Sirrah Enterprises, LLC v. Wunderlich 377 P.3d 360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lee v. ING Investment Management, LLC 377 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sirrah Enterprises, LLC v. Wunderlich 377 P.3d 360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., –14 ¶ 22, –89 (App. 2011).
Lee v. ING Investment Management, LLC 377 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, LLC, ¶ 21 (App. 2011) (quoting Sanborn v. Brooker & Wake Prop.
Keg Restaurants Arizona, Inc. v. Jones 375 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Keg Restaurants Arizona, Inc. v. Jones 375 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Keg relies on Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., , 13 ¶ 17, , 133 ¶ 12
Hankerson v. Hankerson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hankerson v. Hankerson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶ 31 (App. 2011).
Chasan v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Chasan v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, LLC, ¶ 31 (App. 2011).
Hernandez v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hernandez v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶ 21 (App. 2011).
Johnson v. Swing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Johnson v. Swing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶ 18, Alta Vista Plaza
Soverign v. Integrated Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Soverign v. Integrated Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Determining ‘who is the successful party for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees is within the sole discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed on appeal if any reasonable basis exists for it.’” Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶ 21 (App. 2011) (quoting Sanborn v. Brooker & Wake Prop.
Hall Alpine v. Ashburner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hall Alpine v. Ashburner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, LLC., ¶ 17, (“[A] fee request based upon a contractual provision requires pleading and proof.”).
City Center Executive Plaza, LLC v. Jantzen 344 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
City Center Executive Plaza, LLC v. Jantzen 344 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., , 14 ¶ 27
Ekvall v. Estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ekvall v. Estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶ 18
Vortex v. denkewicz/engelhard 334 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Vortex v. denkewicz/engelhard 334 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Determining the prevailing party for the purposes of attorneys’ fees is within the trial court’s discretion and “will not be disturbed on appeal if any reasonable basis exists for it.” Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, LLC, ¶ 21, (quoting Sanborn v. Brooker & Wake Prop.
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
¶13 Additionally, “‘[t]he word ‘judgment’ is commonly understood to mean the act of a court which fixes clearly the rights and liabilities of the respective parties to litigation and determines the controversy at hand.’” Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C.
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
10 judgment.”7 See also Metzler II, 279 P.3d at 1190 (describing “‘a more favorable judgment’ as the event creating the right to sanctions”); Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., (sanctions award depends upon final judgment not jury’s verdict because scope and amount of final judgment may exceed scope and amount of jury’s verdict).
Bradshaw v. Jasso-Barajas 291 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Bradshaw v. Jasso-Barajas 291 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶ 31 , Aqua Mgmt., ¶ 8
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
the only judgment,” and BCI contends “judgment” should be interpreted as “the judgment immediately following trial, not a judgment eventually obtained following an appeal.”2 “Judgment” “‘is commonly understood to mean the act of a court which fixes clearly the rights and liabilities of the respective parties to litigation and determines the controversy at hand.’” Berry v. 352 E. Va., L.L.C.