Cited by

n.1 (App. 1992) (“This court may take judicial notice of records and other appellate proceedings in the same case.”).

(noting that party cannot successfully oppose a fee request “merely by asserting broad challenges to the application”; “It is not enough for an opposing party simply to state, for example, that the hours claimed are excessive and the rates submitted too high.” (citation omitted)).

-96 (App. 1992) (affirming an award of attorneys’ fees where the opposing party conducted no discovery and presented no evidence challenging the relevance of any entry).

(party claiming excessive or unreasonable fees must identify specific entries that it claims are not recoverable).

n.1 (App. 1992) (“This court may take judicial notice of records and other appellate proceedings in the same case.”).

and will uphold the award so long as the court “could have made the ruling without exceeding the bounds of reason,” Associated Indem.

-94, -20 (App. 1992) (distinguishing Lacer and concluding the trial court did not err in applying a prevailing market rate rather than a cost-based rate for an attorneys’ fees request).

see 2 Absent material revision after the relevant date, we cite a statute's current version.

(citing State v. Maricopa Cnty.

-92 (App. 1992) (citing Illinois v. Sangamo Constr.

(finding no abuse of discretion where adequate explanation existed in the record to support the trial court’s decision).

(explaining that it is “not enough for an opposing party simply to state, for example, that the hours claimed are excessive and the rates submitted too high”) (citations omitted).

(rejecting argument that Schweiger applies to calculate reasonable fee to award to the state when it was represented by Attorney General’s Office).