Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ocean West Contractors, Inc. v. Halec Construction Co., 600 P.2d 1102.

52 citing documents.

Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Co., Inc., (Noting that, although not always dispositive, the “award of money is, however, an important item to consider when deciding who, in fact, did prevail.
Panto v. Sines Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Panto v. Sines Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
A money judgment is one important factor for consideration, but the “party who is awarded a money judgment in a lawsuit is not always the successful or prevailing party.” Ocean W. Contractors
Zambezi v. Proforma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Zambezi v. Proforma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Co., -74 (1979) (distinguishing between a case involving essentially two separate actions, where each action should be dealt with individually regarding the award of attorneys’ fees, and a case involving one action on a contract and a counterclaim on the same contract, where the court could determine the statutory “suc
American Civil Liberties Union of Az v. Dcs Ariz. 2021
American Civil Liberties Union of Az v. Dcs Ariz. 2021
Co., Inc., (“The fact that a party did not recover the full measure of relief requested does not mean that he is not the successful party.”).
Berghoff v. Gerdts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Berghoff v. Gerdts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ocean W. Contractors, –74 (1979).
Rotalo v. Sahd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Rotalo v. Sahd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Co., and various cases from other jurisdictions, Sahd asserts the court erred in applying the “net winner” rule.
Hernandez v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Hernandez v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Ocean W. Contractors, Inc. v. Halec Const. Co., Inc., (party awarded money judgment is not always the successful or prevailing party).
Arik v. Rgo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Arik v. Rgo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶37 P.2d 350 (1976), P.2d 340 (1973), and Ocean West Contractors, P.2d 1102 (1979), RGO asserts the trial court should have applied a “no judgment rule” or the “net judgment rule,” which, as described in Trollope, permits a court to determine the prevailing party by comparing any amount awarded to any setoff or amount awarded in a counterclaim.
Amberwood v. Swann's Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Amberwood v. Swann's Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Co., (“The award of money is .
Stefanovich v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Stefanovich v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kimball v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kimball v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
17 KIMBALL et al. v. PERKINS et al. Decision of the Court of success, see Ocean W. Contractors, the court retains discretion to measure the relative success of the opposing parties.
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
Martinez v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Martinez v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co., (stating that a monetary award is not dispositive but “an important item to consider when deciding who, in fact, did prevail.”).
Johnson v. Swing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Johnson v. Swing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co., (monetary award not dispositive but “an important item to consider when deciding who, in fact, did prevail”).
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
Ocean West Contractors, but see Murphy Farrell Development, ¶ 36, (noting that trial courts “may use a ‘percentage of success’ factor or a ‘totality of the litigation’ rubric to determine which party prevailed” when the “net judgment rule” is
Bennett Blum, M.D., Inc. v. Cowan Law Office of Rand Haddock 330 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Bennett Blum, M.D., Inc. v. Cowan Law Office of Rand Haddock 330 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
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
Phrased more glibly, “who won?” ¶ 34 Sourant’s breaches of the Agreements do not necessarily preclude him from being the “prevailing party.” We are guided in this conclusion by our supreme court’s decision in Ocean West Contractors
Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C. 261 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C. 261 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Co., , (monetary award not dispositive but “an important item to consider when deciding who, in fact, did prevail”).
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
Co., Inc., , (fact that party did not recover full measure of relief requested does not mean he is not the successful party).
Farmers Insurance v. Tallsalt 953 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Farmers Insurance v. Tallsalt 953 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
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
(quoting Ocean West Contractors, , ).
Sanborn v. Brooker & Wake Property Management, Inc. 874 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Sanborn v. Brooker & Wake Property Management, Inc. 874 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Ayala v. Olaiz 776 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Ayala v. Olaiz 776 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Ocean West Contractors, , ().
Janis v. Spelts 739 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Janis v. Spelts 739 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Cf. Ocean West Contractors, Inc v. Halec Const. Co., Inc., 123 * P.2d 1102 (1979).
Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc. v. Camelback Office Park 751 P.2d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc. v. Camelback Office Park 751 P.2d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
the Arizona Supreme Court indicated that when a claim and counterclaim are two separate actions, each should be dealt with individually with regard to attorneys’ fees.