Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Warner, 694 P.2d 1181.

400 citing documents.

State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Corp. v. Warner (Windes, J., specially concurring).
KCI Restaurant Management LLC v. Holm Wright Hyde & Hays PLC 341 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
KCI Restaurant Management LLC v. Holm Wright Hyde & Hays PLC 341 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(explaining that the legislature’s use of “may” gives the trial court discretion to award attorneys’ fees).
Shano v. Shano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Shano v. Shano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Fisher v. Edgerton 336 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Granville v. Howard 335 P.3d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Fisher v. Edgerton 336 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(listing factors); Schweiger, 138 Ariz. at 187 , 673 P.2d at 931 (listing factors).
Granville v. Howard 335 P.3d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(discussing fee awards in contested contract actions pursuant to AR.S.
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
Stratton v. Weaver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Stratton v. Weaver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rzendzian v. M&I Marshall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rzendzian v. M&I Marshall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sneberger v. Hon. harris/cmre Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sneberger v. Hon. harris/cmre Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Moreover, the superior court held the justice court erred in (1) not considering the factors set forth in Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Warner (Warner), and (2) the attorney fee award was not reasonable because it lacked sufficient detail.
Meritage v. Bingham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mestas v. intermountain/advantage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mestas v. intermountain/advantage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Meritage v. Bingham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Cooper v. Motta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Cooper v. Motta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶14 In deciding whether to award fees pursuant to § 12-341.01
In Re Indenture of Trust Dated January 13, 1964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Weinstein v. Weinstein 326 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
In Re Indenture of Trust Dated January 13, 1964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Weinstein v. Weinstein 326 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Munger Chadwick, P.L.C. v. Farwest Development & Construction of the Southwest, LLC 329 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Munger Chadwick, P.L.C. v. Farwest Development & Construction of the Southwest, LLC 329 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Fuqua v. Dollar Tree Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Fuqua v. Dollar Tree Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Marquez v. Ortega 296 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Marquez v. Ortega 296 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Rudinsky v. Harris 290 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Rudinsky v. Harris 290 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
weigh against an award of attorneys’ fees.
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
(“[T]he question is not whether the judges of this court would have made an original like ruling, but whether a judicial mind, in view of the law and circumstances, could have made the ruling without exceeding the bounds of reason.
Assyia v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 273 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Assyia v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 273 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
( , (Windes, J., specially concurring)).
Democratic Party of Pima County v. Beth Ford Pima County Board of Supervisors 269 P.3d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Democratic Party of Pima County v. Beth Ford Pima County Board of Supervisors 269 P.3d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
-71, -85 (1985) (discussing attorney fees under § 12-341.01).
MOTZER Dba RLM DESIGNS v. ESCALANTE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
MOTZER Dba RLM DESIGNS v. ESCALANTE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Cook v. Losnegard 265 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Cook v. Losnegard 265 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
In Re Esther Caplan Trust 265 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Bistrow v. Sova 265 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Bistrow v. Sova 265 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(in reviewing for an abuse of discretion, “[t]he question is not whether the judges of this court would have made an original like ruling, but whether a judicial mind, in view of the law and circumstances, could have made the ruling without exceeding the bounds of reason.
In Re Esther Caplan Trust 265 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(in reviewing for an abuse of discretion, "[t]he question is not whether the judges of this court would have made an original like ruling, but whether a judicial mind, in view of the law and circumstances, could have made the ruling without exceeding the bounds of reason.
Loftus v. Arizona State University Public Safety Personnel Retirement System Local Board 255 P.3d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by