Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Timmons v. City of Tucson, 830 P.2d 871.

34 citing documents.

In Re the Marriage of Wichansky Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
In Re the Marriage of Wichansky Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Lorence v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Lorence v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Because our Civil Rights Act is modeled after federal employment discrimination laws, “Title VII case law is persuasive in interpreting the Arizona statute.”
Snell v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Snell v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Co., Inc., ¶ 42 (App. 2009) ().
Mill Alley Partners v. Wallace 341 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mill Alley Partners v. Wallace 341 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 9, -57, -78 (App. 1991).
Geller v. Lesk 285 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Geller v. Lesk 285 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
5 , (reversing award based on contingency agreement pursuant to fee-shifting statute when there was no evidence to show fee was reasonable based on reasonable number of hours or reasonable rate or that enhancement was justified).
Bogard v. CANNON & WENDT ELEC. CO., INC. 212 P.3d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Bogard v. CANNON & WENDT ELEC. CO., INC. 212 P.3d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Under both statutory schemes, “the determination of an attorney’s fee award must begin with the calculation of the prevailing party’s reasonable attorney’s fees.”
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(trial court instructs jury on legal theories supported by evidence).
Charles I. Friedman, P.C. v. Microsoft Corp. 141 P.3d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Charles I. Friedman, P.C. v. Microsoft Corp. 141 P.3d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
(discussing the general proposition that enhancement is rare); Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, , (applying the private attorney general doctrine); , (applying statutory fee shifting doctrine); , (applying the "bad faith” exception).
Burke v. Az State Retirement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Burke v. Az State Retirement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Mgmt., Inc., (citation omitted), quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40, 50 (1982).
Francini v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 937 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Francini v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 937 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young 917 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1996
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young 917 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1996
Hawkins v. State, Dept. of Economic SEC. 900 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Hawkins v. State, Dept. of Economic SEC. 900 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Haynes v. Syntek Finance Corp. 909 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Haynes v. Syntek Finance Corp. 909 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
St. Luke's v. State, Dept. of Law 884 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
St. Luke's v. State, Dept. of Law 884 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
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
ellants are correct in their assertion that evidence of reasonableness is required even in contingency fee cases, , in our view, “ ‘[t]he most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.’ ” , (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 , 103 *431 S.Ct.
Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp. 880 P.2d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp. 880 P.2d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Burris v. City of Phoenix 875 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Burris v. City of Phoenix 875 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
After this case was at issue, , was decided.