Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Griswold, 446 P.2d 467.

25 citing documents.

STITH v. BELLA VITA HEALTH Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
City Center Executive Plaza, LLC v. Jantzen 344 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
City Center Executive Plaza, LLC v. Jantzen 344 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Schritter v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 4 P.3d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Schritter v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 4 P.3d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
257, 262-63 , -83 (1972) (costs are incidental damages that indemnify parties against the expense of successfully asserting their rights in court); 446 .
Johnson v. Pankratz 2 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Johnson v. Pankratz 2 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(actual and compensatory damages are generally synonymous and are awarded “as an equivalent for the injury done” or as compensation for the harm inflicted).
In Re Shannon 876 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1994
In Re Shannon 876 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1994
Respondent maintains that costs can be imposed only when authorized by statute.
State v. Morris 839 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Morris 839 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
damages,” defined as “damages in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury sustained; such compensation or damages for an injury as follow from the nature and character of the act, and will put the injured party in the position which he was in before he was injured.” 25 C.J.S., Damages § 2 at 615; Arizona Copper Co., , 177 P. 29 (1918)
Barry v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 542 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Barry v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 542 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
“Costs” as used in this rule are basically incidental damages allowed to indemnify a party against the expense of successfully asserting his rights in court.”
Starkovich v. Noye 519 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Starkovich v. Noye 519 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Panagiotis v. Miltiades 497 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Panagiotis v. Miltiades 497 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State Ex Rel. Talley v. McAvoy 482 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State Ex Rel. Talley v. McAvoy 482 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
This argument has been met and answered in State of Arizona, , where the broker was dealing with his own land and we observed that A.R.S.
Associates Finance Corp. v. Walters 477 P.2d 546 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Associates Finance Corp. v. Walters 477 P.2d 546 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
: “[Costs] are creatures of statute, and unless provided for by statute, they are not recoverable.” A.R.S.
Arizona Real Estate Department v. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co. 449 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Arizona Real Estate Department v. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co. 449 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by