Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Catalina Foothills Ass'n, Inc. v. White, 646 P.2d 312.

28 citing documents.

Thomas v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Thomas v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
L. P. 85(b)(2); see also Catalina Foothills Ass'n, ("Evidence that could have been discovered with reasonable diligence prior to trial is not entitled to be considered as 'newly discovered.'" (quoting Ariz. R. Civ.
National Equity v. Mwm Forever Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
National Equity v. Mwm Forever Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
P. 60(b)(2); Catalina Foothills Ass’n v. White
Fields v. Eorp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Fields v. Eorp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Neither the statute nor common law requires clients to personally assume “the burden of the expense,” Catalina Foothills Ass’n, which if required would defeat the rationale of contingent fee agreements.
Starr Surplus v. Transwestern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Starr Surplus v. Transwestern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See Catalina Foothills Ass’n v. White, (“We do not hold that the trial court cannot properly 5 This assertion by counsel for Starr Surplus that counsel for Transwestern made a false representation is both unavailing and troubling, as the record makes clear Transwestern has repeatedly acknowledged Zurich has defended and indemnified T
Dbt Yuma LLC v. Ycaa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Dbt Yuma LLC v. Ycaa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Orfaly, 209 Ariz. at 267, ¶ 27; Catalina Foothills Ass'n, (contrary rule would "misdirect the benefit derived through the foresight of the cautious individual who procured insurance" and "would also discriminate against the insurance company").
Blackhawk v. McComb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Blackhawk v. McComb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Catalina Foothills Ass’n v. White
Emerman v. Az Holding Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Emerman v. Az Holding Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
P. 60(c)(2); see also Catalina Foothills Ass’n
Chaurasia v. General Motors Corp. 126 P.3d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Chaurasia v. General Motors Corp. 126 P.3d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Co., , Catalina Foothills Ass’n v. White
Orfaly, George, Albrecht, Reid v. Tucson Symphony Society... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Orfaly, George, Albrecht, Reid v. Tucson Symphony Society... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
See Catalina Foothills Ass’n
Moedt v. General Motors Corp. 60 P.3d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Moedt v. General Motors Corp. 60 P.3d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
See Catalina Foothills Ass’n
Wilcox v. Waldman 744 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Wilcox v. Waldman 744 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
As Division 2 of this court, however, has held in Catalina Foothills Ass’n v. White, , the fact that fees may ultimately be borne by third parties pursuant to an insurance or indemnity agreement does not prevent the successful party from meeting the requirements of A.R.S.
Lacer v. Navajo County 687 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Lacer v. Navajo County 687 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
See Catalina Foothills Association, , Shirley v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company
Grand Real Estate, Inc. v. Sirignano 676 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Grand Real Estate, Inc. v. Sirignano 676 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Warner 694 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Warner 694 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
We will not substitute our discretion for that exercised by the court below, see Catalina Foothills Association, , if there is a reasonable basis in the record to sustain the exercise of that discretion.