Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite ABC Supply, Inc. v. Edwards, 952 P.2d 286.

32 citing documents.

Lucky Horse v. Yarbrough Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Lucky Horse v. Yarbrough Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Muscarella v. Muscarella Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Muscarella v. Muscarella Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Strickland v. Calton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Strickland v. Calton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Dominguez v. Dominguez 547 P.3d 1079 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Dominguez v. Dominguez 547 P.3d 1079 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Hkb, Inc. v. Imperial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Hkb, Inc. v. Imperial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ward v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ward v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See ABC Supply, (“Only the theories expressly raised at trial are properly preserved for appeal.”) (internal quotation omitted).
Bishara v. US Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bishara v. US Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Knight v. Knight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Knight v. Knight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
2 KNIGHT v. KNIGHT Decision of the Court (); ¶ 4 (App. 2012) (amount of attorneys’ fees) (citing ABC Supply, ).
Calcagno v. Ainbinder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Calcagno v. Ainbinder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See ABC Supply, -52 (App. 1996) (concluding the trial court had jurisdiction to amend its premature award of attorneys’ fees upon request pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)); Ariz. R. Fam.
Baron v. Dillard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Baron v. Dillard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See ABC Supply, -57 (App. 1996) (awarding fees on appeal where appellant’s appeal was frivolous); Larkin v. State ex rel.
Thompson v. Corry 291 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Thompson v. Corry 291 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
King v. Titsworth 212 P.3d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
King v. Titsworth 212 P.3d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Harrington v. Pulte Home Corp. 119 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Harrington v. Pulte Home Corp. 119 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Burke v. Az State Retirement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Burke v. Az State Retirement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Similarly, although attorney fee awards are generally subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review, see ABC Supply, Inc. v. Edwards, 191 Ariz. 48, whether the common fund doctrine applies is also a question of law.
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership v. Jenkins 978 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership v. Jenkins 978 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998