Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Title Insurance Co. of Minnesota v. Acumen Trading Co., 591 P.2d 1302.

59 citing documents.

TRIFECTA v. CT INVESTMENTS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
TRIFECTA v. CT INVESTMENTS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Wright v. Mailatyar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Wright v. Mailatyar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Co. of 8 WRIGHT v. MAILATYAR, et al. Decision of the Court Minnesota v. Acumen Trading Co., Inc.
Little Wing Ranch v. Carroll Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Little Wing Ranch v. Carroll Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Co. of Minn. v. Acumen Trading Co., Inc., (“If possible, a construction will be adopted that supports the judgment, rather than one that destroys it.”).
Arizona Biltmore v. Conlon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Arizona Biltmore v. Conlon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“A construction will be adopted that supports the judgment, rather than one that destroys it[.]”).
Young v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Young v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Co. of Minn. v. Acumen Trading Co., Inc., ().
First Financial v. Claassen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
First Financial v. Claassen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Schlussel v. Gerlach ex rel. County of Maricopa 375 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Schlussel v. Gerlach ex rel. County of Maricopa 375 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Britt v. Steffen 205 P.3d 357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Britt v. Steffen 205 P.3d 357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Moreover, by permitting motions for attorneys’ fees to be filed after the entry of the merits judgment, Rule 54(g) implicitly superseded the proposition in Title Insurance Co. of Minnesota, v. Acumen Trading Co., , relied on in Mark Lighting II and Monti, that a judgment that fails to grant requested attorneys’ fees constitutes a denial of the request because the two are “inextricably tied” to one another as parts of the same claim.
Burkhamer v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Burkhamer v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Co. of Minn. vs. Acumen Trading Co.
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 108 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 108 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Co. of Minn. v. Acumen Trading Co., Inc., , Foster v. Camelback Mgmt.
Sanders v. Foley 945 P.2d 1313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Sanders v. Foley 945 P.2d 1313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Guardianship of Monti v. Monti 924 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Guardianship of Monti v. Monti 924 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Western Technologies, Inc. 877 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Western Technologies, Inc. 877 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(award of attorneys’ fees under A.R.S.
PNL Credit L.P. v. Southwest Pacific Investment, Inc. 877 P.2d 832 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
PNL Credit L.P. v. Southwest Pacific Investment, Inc. 877 P.2d 832 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
-27 , -04 (1979), the Arizona Supreme Court held that an objection to a judgment’s lack of attorneys’ fees award needs to be made by a motion for new trial or motion to alter or amend the judgment.
Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp. 812 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp. 812 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
see Indiana Harbor Belt R. Co., 860 F.2d at 1444-45 .
Egan-Ryan Mechanical Co. v. Cardon Meadows Development Corp. 818 P.2d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Egan-Ryan Mechanical Co. v. Cardon Meadows Development Corp. 818 P.2d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
GM Development Corp. v. Community American Mortgage Corp. 795 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
GM Development Corp. v. Community American Mortgage Corp. 795 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
The Arizona Supreme Court has held that “[f]or the purpose of rule 54(b), multiple claims exist if the factual basis for recovery states a number of different claims that could have been enforced separately.” Continental Casualty, 130 Ariz. at 191, 635 P.2d at 176 ( , ).
Hamm v. Y & M Enterprises, Inc. 757 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Hamm v. Y & M Enterprises, Inc. 757 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Two Arizona cases have discussed the applicability, of Rule 59 to requests for attorney’s fees: Mark Lighting Fixture Co., , and Title Insurance Company of Minnesota v. Acumen Trading Co., Inc.
Mark Lighting Fixture Co. v. General Electric Supply Co. 745 P.2d 85 Ariz. 1987
Mark Lighting Fixture Co. v. General Electric Supply Co. 745 P.2d 85 Ariz. 1987
-27 , -04 (1979) (where judgment fails to grant requested attorneys’ fees, motion for new trial or motion to amend judgment should be filed within 15 days of entry of judgment if litigant believes judgment not justified or wishes to amend it).
Trus Joist Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 735 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Trus Joist Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 735 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Mark Lighting Fixture Co. v. General Electric Supply Co. 745 P.2d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Mark Lighting Fixture Co. v. General Electric Supply Co. 745 P.2d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Appellant cites the case of Title Insurance Co. of Minnesota v. Acumen Trading Co., Inc,, , in which the Arizona Supreme Court held that if a lower court judgment does not contain an award of attorney's fees where fees have been requested pursuant to A.R.S.
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State 696 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1985
Distinguished New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State 696 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1985
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Warner 694 P.2d 1181 Ariz. 1985
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Warner 694 P.2d 1181 Ariz. 1985
Trebilcox v. Brown & Bain, P.A. 653 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Trebilcox v. Brown & Bain, P.A. 653 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
the Arizona Supreme Court held that the absence in a judgment of a disposition of a request for attorney’s fees and a Rule 54(b) determination did not preclude an otherwise final judgment from becoming final and appealable.