DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Munger Chadwick, P.L.C. v. Farwest Development & Construction of the Southwest, LLC, 329 P.3d 229.

76 citing documents.

  • Warner v. Gurule Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 11 (App. 2014) (finding a pro se attorney is not entitled to fees).
  • Kaltz v. Kaltz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    & Const. of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
  • Cheang v. Reyes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    & Const. of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 5 (App. 2014) (citation omitted), but as the prevailing party we grant Father his costs upon compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil 6 CHEANG v. REYES Decision of the Court Appellate Procedure 21 (“Rule”).
  • Nolte v. Brady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 5 (App. 2014) (“In Arizona, it is the rule that parties who represent themselves in a legal action are not entitled to recover attorney fees.”).” In our discretion, we decline to award Mother her taxable costs.
  • Pike v. Vanderhyde Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
  • Hancock v. Hancock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    and Const. of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
  • Ador v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    & Const. of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
  • Berry v. Berry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 5 (App. 2014) (“In Arizona, it is the rule that parties who represent themselves in a legal action are not entitled to recover attorney fees.”).
  • GONZALEZ v. FIDUCIARY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
  • Parker v. Meeks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
  • BAILEY v. BAILEY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    & Const. of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 5 (App. 2014) (“[P]arties who represent themselves in a legal action are not entitled to recover attorney fees.”).
  • ROFF v. GRANT/J AND J Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 5 (App. 2014) (“In Arizona, it is the rule that parties who represent themselves in a legal action are not entitled to recover attorney fees.”).
  • Lincoln v. McDaniel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Lincoln v. McDaniel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
  • Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    of the Sw., LLC, –27 ¶ 5 (App. 2014) (citing cases).
  • Esparza v. Warner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Esparza v. Warner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 11 (App. 2014) (“[A] pro se attorney who works in [his] spare time on a case representing [him]self .
  • Tang v. Haney-Tang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Tang v. Haney-Tang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
  • Furst v. Mayne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Furst v. Mayne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    and Const. of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 14 (App. 8 FURST v. MAYNE, et al. Decision of the Court 2014).
  • Rosenberg v. Conzoner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Rosenberg v. Conzoner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
  • Danko v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Danko v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    of the Sw., LLC, 128, ¶¶ 5, 12-13 (App. 2014) (noting that “parties who represent themselves in a legal action are not entitled to recover attorney fees,” regardless of whether they are licensed attorneys).
  • Murdock v. Bustamante Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Murdock v. Bustamante Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    and Constr, of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
  • Soughar v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Soughar v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
  • Nickel v. Potter 537 P.3d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Motley v. Simmons 537 P.3d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Nickel v. Potter 537 P.3d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
  • Motley v. Simmons 537 P.3d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
  • Brevetti v. Brevetti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Brevetti v. Brevetti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    Of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
  • Gonani v. Gonani Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Houseopoly LLC v. Sky Boles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Houseopoly LLC v. Sky Boles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    of the Sw., LLC, –27 ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
  • Gonani v. Gonani Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    of the Sw., LLC, -27, ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
  • McGill v. Ball Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • McGill v. Ball Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    of the Sw., LLC, -28, ¶¶ 5-13 (App. 2014).
  • Lemay v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Lemay v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Of the Sw., LLC, -27, ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
  • Shields v. Ogden-Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Shields v. Ogden-Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 5 (App. 2014) (“[P]arties who represent themselves in a legal action are not entitled to recover attorney fees.”).
  • Kayser v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Kayser v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    of the Sw., LLC, ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
  • Allegra G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Allegra G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    of the Sw., LLC, –27, ¶ 5 (App. 2014) (“In Arizona, it is the rule that parties who represent themselves in a legal action are not entitled to recover attorney fees.”).