DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ayala v. Olaiz, 776 P.2d 807.

36 citing documents.

  • Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    Under the “net judgment rule,” “[i]n cases involving various competing claims, counterclaims and setoffs all tried together, the successful party is the net winner.” (“The term ‘successful party’ means the party who wins the lawsuit.”).
  • Schenk v. Casebolt II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Schenk v. Casebolt II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶38 Casebolt cites Ayala v. Olaiz, which stated that “[i]n cases involving various competing claims, counterclaims, and setoffs all tried together, the successful party is the net winner.”
  • Klarkowski v. Define Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Klarkowski v. Define Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    And when applying the totality of litigation test, the court may consider “other factors aside from the winning of a money judgment.”
  • Rotalo v. Sahd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Rotalo v. Sahd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    (“In cases involving various competing claims, counterclaims and setoffs all tried together, the successful party is the net winner.”).
  • Hernandez v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Hernandez v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶11 Finally, for the proposition that the “net winner” in a multi-claim case is the successful party.
  • Stefanovich v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Stefanovich v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶14 Looking at the net judgment is one method of determining the successful party, (a party who obtains judgment in excess of setoff or counterclaim is “successful”), particularly in cases involving “competing claims, counterclaims and setoffs all tried together,”
  • Martinez v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Martinez v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    § 12-341, -342 (2016); 7 (“In cases involving various competing claims, counterclaims and setoffs all tried together, the successful party is the net winner.”); see also Ocean W. Contractors, Inc. v. Halec Constr.
  • Eick v. Delta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Eick v. Delta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶21 Looking at net judgment amounts is one method of determining the successful party, (a party who obtains judgment in excess of setoff or counterclaim is “successful”), particularly in cases involving “competing claims, counterclaims and setoffs all tried together.”
  • Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson 278 P.3d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson 278 P.3d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    § 12-341; , (party who succeeds on some, albeit fewer than all, claims "sufficiently successful” to recover all allowable costs); , (party obtaining partial success entitled to all taxable costs).
  • Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C. 261 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C. 261 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    We also have held that “[i]n cases involving various competing claims, counterclaims and setoffs all tried together, the successful party is the net winner.”
  • Johnson v. STATE EX REL. DOT 213 P.3d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Johnson v. STATE EX REL. DOT 213 P.3d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • McEvoy v. Aerotek, Inc. 34 P.3d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • McEvoy v. Aerotek, Inc. 34 P.3d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    However, , the court noted that the cases in which courts followed the “totality of circumstances” test and considered factors other than the winning of a money judgment to determine the prevailing party were generally multi-party, multi-claim actions, usually involving counterclaims, rather
  • Clouse v. STATE, DPS 984 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Clouse v. STATE, DPS 984 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    This rule “provides a method by which a defendant can avoid liability for most taxable costs by making an early, realistic offer of judgment.”
  • Henry v. Cook 938 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Henry v. Cook 938 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    we held that a plaintiff was a successful party even though the jury determined that she was 65 percent at fault.
  • Hales v. Humana of Arizona, Inc. 923 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • Hales v. Humana of Arizona, Inc. 923 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
    Division One of this court held that a prevailing plaintiff against whom 65% of the fault had been assessed was entitled to recover all her taxable costs from the defendant, against whom only 35% of the fault had been assessed.
  • Davis v. Discount Tire Co. 898 P.2d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Davis v. Discount Tire Co. 898 P.2d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    provides a method by which a defendant can avoid liability for most taxable costs by making an early, realistic offer of judgment.” 4
  • Drozda v. McComas 887 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Drozda v. McComas 887 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Shelby v. Action Scaffolding, Inc. 827 P.2d 462 Ariz. 1992
  • Shelby v. Action Scaffolding, Inc. 827 P.2d 462 Ariz. 1992
    *8 C. Costs Because Shelby is the successful party under the Settlement-First Formula, he is entitled to costs as the “net winner.” , (“In cases involving various competing claims, counterclaims and setoffs all tried together, the successful party is the net winner.”).