Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sanborn v. Brooker & Wake Property Management, Inc., 874 P.2d 982.

74 citing documents.

Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Mgmt., Inc., (“who is the successful party for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees is within the sole discretion of the trial court”); Warner, 143 Ariz. at 570 (listing factors “to assist the trial judge in determining whether attorney’s fees should be granted” under A.R.S.
Custom Accounting v. Sal E. Mander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Custom Accounting v. Sal E. Mander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Lapour v. Central State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Lapour v. Central State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Mgmt., Inc., (“While the award of money is an important item to consider when deciding who is the prevailing party, the fact that a party does not recover the full measure of relief it requests does not mean that it is not the successful party.”).
Heritage v. Weinberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Heritage v. Weinberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Pillsbury v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Pillsbury v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Risas Holdings v. Tackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Yslas v. Sms Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Risas Holdings v. Tackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Mgmt., Inc., ¶ 25 (App. 2017); see also Assyia v. State Farm Mut.
Yslas v. Sms Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sanborn v. Brooker & Wake Property Mgmt., Inc.
Klarkowski v. Define Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Klarkowski v. Define Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Mgmt., Inc., (citation omitted).
Cook v. Grebe 429 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Cook v. Grebe 429 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Southwest v. Sbbi, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Southwest v. Sbbi, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Mgmt., Inc., see also Lee v. ING Inv.
Sonoran v. Bank of the West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Sonoran v. Bank of the West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Whitestone v. Jade Palace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Whitestone v. Jade Palace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Mgmt., Inc., (stating that a determination of prevailing party for “purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees 11 WHITESTONE v. JADE PALACE et al. Decision of the Court is within the sole discretion of the trial court, and will not be di
Rotalo v. Sahd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Rotalo v. Sahd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 396 P.3d 600 Ariz. 2017
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 396 P.3d 600 Ariz. 2017
Arik v. Rgo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Arik v. Rgo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Mgmt., Inc., (citing Schwartz v. Farmers Ins.
Stefanovich v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Stefanovich v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mgmt., Inc., see also Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., ¶ 21 (App. 2011).
Lee v. ING Investment Management, LLC 377 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lee v. ING Investment Management, LLC 377 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
3 LEE v. ING Opinion of the Court Mgmt., Inc., ); Hawk v. PC Village Ass’n Inc., ¶ 19 (App. 2013).
Sp Syntax v. Federal Ins. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sp Syntax v. Federal Ins. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mgmt., Inc., (stating that the Warner factors “are not a guide for deciding who is the prevailing party but rather are intended ‘to assist the trial judge in determining whether attorney’s fees should be granted .
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
Mgmt., Inc., , (citing Schwartz v. Farmers Ins.
Soverign v. Integrated Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Soverign v. Integrated Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hall Alpine v. Ashburner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hall Alpine v. Ashburner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Vortex v. denkewicz/engelhard 334 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Vortex v. denkewicz/engelhard 334 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Calisi v. Unified Financial Services, LLC 302 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Calisi v. Unified Financial Services, LLC 302 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
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
Mgmt., Inc., , (recognizing, in the context of § 12-341.01(A), that a determination of the successful party “will not be disturbed on appeal if any reasonable basis exists for it”); Schwartz v. Farmers Ins.
D'Amico v. Structural I Co. 274 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
D'Amico v. Structural I Co. 274 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Mgmt., Inc., , (employer who withholds wages in bad faith faces “possibility of treble damages”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by