Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Schwartz v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona, 800 P.2d 20.

66 citing documents.

Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Reynolds v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Reynolds v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Co., (“[T]he preclusion of the amount and type of damages was not prejudicial because the jury found no liability, and the same result would have been warranted if the evidence had been admitted.”).
Zambezi v. Proforma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Zambezi v. Proforma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Co. of Ariz., the court’s net winner reasoning in this case conflated Mark’s successful contract action, which provided a basis for a claim of attorneys’ fees under § 12- 341.01, with Tim’s successful tort action, which did not.
Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ball v. Ball 478 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Ball v. Ball 478 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
of Ariz., see also Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., (appellate court is somewhat unsuited for the fact-finding inquiry regarding attorney’s fees).
Guirguis v. Patel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Guirguis v. Patel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Schenk v. Casebolt II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Schenk v. Casebolt II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Black Creek v. Alanco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Black Creek v. Alanco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Rotalo v. Sahd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Rotalo v. Sahd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Co., (recognizing the trial court possesses discretion to determine the successful party in multiple-party litigation and in cases involving multiple parties or multiple claims).
Hernandez v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Hernandez v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Co. of Ariz., -39 (App. 1990) (affirming fee award to party that prevailed on “a major issue to be decided in [the] litigation” that did not include a monetary award).
Nevens Ex Rel. Hardt v. AZHH, LLC 397 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Nevens Ex Rel. Hardt v. AZHH, LLC 397 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Arik v. Rgo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Arik v. Rgo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Co., P.2d 20 (App. 1990)).
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
Lee v. ING Investment Management, LLC 377 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co. of Ariz., (affirming superior court’s use of a “totality of the litigation” test for determining the successful party).
Summers v. Gloor 368 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Summers v. Gloor 368 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Eick v. Delta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Eick v. Delta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Roberts v. Del Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Roberts v. Del Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Fuqua v. Dollar Tree Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Fuqua v. Dollar Tree Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Hall v. READ DEVELOPMENT, INC. 274 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Hall v. READ DEVELOPMENT, INC. 274 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Co. of Ariz., , (“The trial court possesses discretion to determine who is the successful party in multiple-party litigation and in cases where there are multiple-parties as well as multiple-claims.” (citation omitted)).
Murphy Farrell Development, LLLP v. Sourant 272 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Murphy Farrell Development, LLLP v. Sourant 272 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Co. of Ariz., , Notaros v. Fine Arts Gallery of Scottsdale, Inc., , ).
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
Co. of Ariz., , see also Notaros v. Fine Arts Gallery of Scottsdale, Inc., , (plaintiff alleged fraud; defendant counterclaimed for libel and slander; neither received monetary judgment, but award of fees and costs to defendant based on totality affirmed)
Desert Mountain Properties Ltd. Partnership v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance 236 P.3d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Desert Mountain Properties Ltd. Partnership v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance 236 P.3d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Co. of Ariz., , (“The trial court may rightfully utilize a ‘percentage of success factor’ or a ‘totality of the litigation’ test ...
Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund 38 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund 38 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2002
Co. of Ariz., , (plaintiffs must prove breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing by a preponderance of the evidence); see also General Acc.
Wells Fargo Bank v. Az Laborers Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Az Laborers Ariz. 2002
Co. of Ariz., (plaintiffs must prove breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing by a preponderance of the evidence); see -40- C. Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations ¶71 The Funds claim that by obscuri