Cited by

Hall v. Read Devel., Inc., ¶ 8 (App. 2012).

Hall v. Read Development, Inc., ¶ 30 (App. 2012).

See Hall v. Read Dev., Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 2012) (concluding that the superior court has “broad discretion to determine whether a party was successful in the litigation”).

to the status quo before entering into the contract," Hall v. Read Dev., Inc., ¶ 30 (App. 2012) (-63 (1941)), and "contemplates the 'undoing of the transaction,' whereby each party gives back to the other what it parted with in the original transaction," Standard Chartered, 190 Ariz. at 34.

Hall v. Read Dev., Inc., ¶ 8 (App. 2012) (as amended) (“Once the court determines the successful party, the court weighs various factors to decide the amount of fees, if any, to be awarded the successful party, an exercise that is also highly discretionary.”) (citing Warner, 143 Ariz. at 571).

We have previously said that this sentence “seemingly narrows the trial court’s discretion in handling fee determination issues in contract cases” by deeming an offeror to be the successful party from the date of the written settlement offer forward if the offer is “for an amount equal to or greater than the final judgment.” Hall v. Read Dev., Inc., ¶ 9 (App. 2012).

See Hall v. Read Dev., Inc., ¶¶ 7-8 (App. 2012).

Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 20 (2017) (quoting Hall v. Read Dev., Inc., ¶ 18 (App. 2012)).

Hall v. Read Dev., Inc., ¶ 9 (App. 2012).

Hall v. Read Dev., Inc., ¶ 18 (App. 2012).

Cf. Hall v. Read Dev., Inc., , 283 ¶ 19, (recognizing that statute’s second sentence could “potentially shift the ‘successful party1 designation for at least part of the litigation”).

n.” ¶23 The “remedy of rescission abrogates the contract and undoes it from the beginning; that is, not merely to release the parties from further obligation to each other in respect to the subject of the contract, but to annul the contract and restore the parties to the relative positions which they would have occupied if no such contract had ever been made.” Hall v. Read Dev., Inc., ¶ 30, (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Thus, “a claim for a breach of the implied warranty of habitability sounds in contract.” Hall v. Read Dev., Inc., ¶ 29

See Hall v. Read Dev., Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 2012) (holding a trial court has broad discretion to determine which party was successful for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees).

Hall v. Read Dev., Inc., ¶ 30 (App. 2012)

A “judgment finally obtained” means “the sum ultimately obtained in a particular case,” Hall v. Read Dev., Inc., and while it may include costs, interest, or attorney fees, it does not encompass any obligations a party may owe that were not litigated in the action.

See Hall v. Read Dev., Inc., –83 ¶ 19, –17 (App. 2012) (meshing Rule 68 with A.R.S.

Inc., -81, ¶¶ 7-11, -15 (App. 2012) (discussing prevailing party determinations in light of settlement offers).

Hall v. Read Dev., Inc., ¶ 6