Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Lee v. ING Investment Management, LLC, 377 P.3d 355.
- Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Gipson v. Shinnink
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Mgmt., LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2016) (noting, where partial summary judgment precluded party “from recovering a significant portion of the damages he sought” and an offer of judgment was accepted obviating a jury trial, “[i]n light of the totality of the litigation, there is a reasonable basis for the superior court’s” successful pa
- Panto v. Sines Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Panto v. Sines
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Mgmt., LLC, ¶ 8 (App. 2016).
- Deatcher v. Drake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Deatcher v. Drake
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
3 DEATCHER v. DRAKE Decision of the Court ¶ 8 (App. 2017).
- Mago v. Arizona Escrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Mago v. Arizona Escrow
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Lee v. ING Investment Management, LLC, ¶ 11 (App. 2016).
- Lane v. Statesman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Lane v. Statesman
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Mgmt., LLC, ¶ 8 (App. 2016) (explaining the determination of “successful party” under § 12–341.01 is within the trial court’s discretion, which will not be disturbed if any reasonable support exists); Assyia v. State Farm Mut.
- Tms v. Zachariah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Tms v. Zachariah
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Mgmt., LLC, ¶ 11 (App. 2016).
- Arik v. Rgo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Arik v. Rgo
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
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)).
- Risas Holdings v. Tackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Risas Holdings v. Tackett
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Mgmt., LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2016) (“Partial success does not preclude a party from ‘prevailing’ and receiving a discretionary award of attorneys’ fees; the superior court may find that a party is the successful party even when the recovery it obtains is significantly reduced.” (internal quotations omitted)).
- Guirguis v. Patel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Guirguis v. Patel
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Mgmt., LLC, ¶ 8 (App. 2016); Schwartz v. Farmers Ins.
- Carroll v. Carroll Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Carroll v. Carroll
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Mgmt., LLC, ¶ 11 (App. 2016).
- Hovannisian v. Hovannisian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Hovannisian v. Hovannisian
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Mgmt., LLC, ¶ 11 (App. 2016).
- Riedel v. Fuentes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Riedel v. Fuentes
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Mgmt., LLC, ¶ 11 (App. 2016).
- Klarkowski v. Define Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
Klarkowski v. Define
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Mgmt., LLC, ¶¶ 9– 4 KLARKOWSKI, et al. v. DEFINE, et al. Decision of the Court 10 (App. 2016).
- Southwest v. Sbbi, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
Southwest v. Sbbi, Inc.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Mgmt., LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2016) (providing a party may be successful for purposes of A.R.S.
- Ansley v. Banner Health 419 P.3d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
Ansley v. Banner Health
419 P.3d 552
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Mgmt., LLC, ¶ 11 (App. 2016).
- Hta-Scw v. Roskamp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Hta-Scw v. Roskamp
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Mgmt., LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2016).
- Hernandez v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Hernandez v. Hernandez
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Mgmt., LLC, ¶ 8 (App. 2016) (appellate court will not disturb trial court’s award of attorney fees if there is any reasonable basis for it).
- Evou v. All In Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Evou v. All In
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Mgmt., LLC, ¶ 8, (citations omitted).
- McDivitt v. Geico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
McDivitt v. Geico
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Mgmt., LLC, ¶ 22 (2016) (declining to award fees or costs where both appeal and cross- appeal were unsuccessful).
- Sabatina v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Sabatina v. Cook
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mgmt., LLC, ¶ 11 (App. 2016).