Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Drozda v. McComas, 887 P.2d 612.

30 citing documents.

Hancock v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Hancock v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(“The term ‘successful party’ means the party who wins the lawsuit.”).
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.”).
Singh v. Malhotra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Singh v. Malhotra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(reversed upon certain claims on appeal, but not remanded, with a determined successful party); (explaining that the 19 The parties agree on this much.
Abel Cuellar v. Megan G. Vettorel 332 P.3d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Abel Cuellar v. Megan G. Vettorel 332 P.3d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
-87, -17 (App. 1994) (litigant considering offer of judgment engages in risk-benefit calculation based on knowledge at time of offer).
Arellano v. Primerica Life Insurance 332 P.3d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Arellano v. Primerica Life Insurance 332 P.3d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Furthermore, our “rules of procedure and statutes should be harmonized whenever possible and read in conjunction with each other.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
Lopez v. Food City 322 P.3d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Lopez v. Food City 322 P.3d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Marisol Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles 310 P.3d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Marisol Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles 310 P.3d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(“‘[O]ur rules of procedure and statutes should be harmonized whe[n]ever possible and read in conjunction with each other.’”), quoting Phx.
Metzler v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, Inc. 279 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Metzler v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, Inc. 279 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
P. 81; (amended rule has retroactive application to pending 3 If the offeree rejects an offer and does not later obtain a more favorable judgment .
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
(harmonizing Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 68 and § 12-341 by holding that although the judgment finally obtained by plaintiff was less than defendant’s offer of judgment, plaintiff was still the successful party and therefore entitled to recover both pre-offer and post-offer costs
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
(“The term ‘successful party’ means the party who wins the lawsuit.”).
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
the “successful party” is the party who wins the lawsuit.
Pima County v. Hogan 3 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Pima County v. Hogan 3 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Restaurants, Inc.
Bishop v. Pecanic 975 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Bishop v. Pecanic 975 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
See Drozda v. McComas, 181 Ariz. *531 82 , 85 n. 2, , 615 n. 2 (App. 1994).
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 plaintiff was entitled to recover costs incurred prior to an offer of judgment even though the judgment was less than the offer.
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
On Davis’s cross-appeal from the denial of costs, we conclude that, , even though her recovery was less than defendant’s offer of judgment, she is the prevailing party.