Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Schwab Sales, Inc. v. GN Const. Co., Inc., 992 P.2d 1128.
- Huber v. Arizona Naturopathic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Huber v. Arizona Naturopathic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Amar Law v. Goodman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Amar Law v. Goodman
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
See Schwab Sales, ¶¶ 12-13 (App. 1998) (citing cases).
- Brown v. Arizona Natures Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Brown v. Arizona Natures
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Co., Inc., ¶ 9 (App. 1998).
- North Shore v. Kwang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
North Shore v. Kwang
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Co., ¶¶ 5–7 (App. 1998).
- Amica v. Hemadi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Amica v. Hemadi
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Co., Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 1998).
- Crossroads v. Landwehr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Crossroads v. Landwehr
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Co., Inc., ¶ 11 (App. 1998) (party may recover attorneys’ fees under A.R.S.
- Flagstaff v. Desert Mountain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Flagstaff v. Desert Mountain
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Co., ¶ 11 (App. 1998); (explaining that “fees are not appropriate based on the mere existence of a contract somewhere in the transaction,” and there must be a “causal link between [the] claim and the underlying contract”).
- Todeschi v. Arreola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Todeschi v. Arreola
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Co., Inc., ¶ 9 (App. 1998).
- Synergy v. Singh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Synergy v. Singh
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Co., Inc., ¶ 11 (App. 1998).
- Majerle v. Zimmerman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Majerle v. Zimmerman
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Schwab Sales, ¶ 12 (App. 1998) (“[A] cause of action may arise out of a contract even if one of the litigants was not a party to the contract.”).
- Best v. Nieblas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- Best v. Nieblas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- Orman v. Bowers Living Trust Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Orman v. Bowers Living Trust
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Co., -37, ¶ 9 (App. 1998)).
- Speaks v. Lyft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Martinez v. Barba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Martinez v. Barba
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Co., Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 1998).
-
Speaks v. Lyft
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See Schwab Sales, ¶ 4 (App. 1998) (Attorney’s fees cannot be granted “without authorization by statute, rule, or otherwise”).
- Vazirani v. Annexus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Vazirani v. Annexus
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co., ¶ 9 (App. 1998); ¶ 5 (App. 2006) (stating that whether a particular expenditure qualifies as a taxable cost is a question of law that we review de novo).
- Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
-
Ader v. Estate of Felger
375 P.3d 97
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Co., (even if claim arises out of contract, award under § 12-341.01 is discretionary).
- City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. 375 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc.
375 P.3d 1189
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co., -37, ¶ 9 (App. 1998)).
- Valencia v. Bp Capital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Valencia v. Bp Capital
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co., Inc., ¶ 9 (App. 1998).
- M-11 Ltd. Partnership v. Gommard 330 P.3d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
M-11 Ltd. Partnership v. Gommard
330 P.3d 356
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Schwab Sales, Inc. v. GN Const. Co., Inc., –36, ¶¶ 3,9
- Caruthers v. Underhill 287 P.3d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
-
Caruthers v. Underhill
287 P.3d 807
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Co., -37, ¶ 9 , -32 (App.1998).
- Wang Electric, Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC 283 P.3d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
-
Wang Electric, Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC
283 P.3d 45
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Co., Inc., ¶ 13 , (holding equipment lessor’s unjust enrichment claim against general contractor arose from contract between general contractor and subcontractor-lessee who failed to make lease payments).
- Cardinal & Stachel, PC v. Curtiss 238 P.3d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
- Cardinal & Stachel, PC v. Curtiss 238 P.3d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
- Kay S. v. Mark S. 142 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
-
Kay S. v. Mark S.
142 P.3d 249
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Co., ¶ 3 , (interpretation of court rule is reviewed de novo).
- Carlisle v. Petrosky 131 P.3d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
-
Carlisle v. Petrosky
131 P.3d 495
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Co., , 36 ¶ 7, (“By its failure to appeal, [the defendant] had accepted the arbitrator’s determination that it was not entitled to an award.”).
- Rowland v. Kellogg Brown and Root, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
-
Rowland v. Kellogg Brown and Root, Inc.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Co., P.2d 1128 (App. 1998).