Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Murphey v. Gray, 327 P.2d 751.

47 citing documents.

SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 103 , Augusta Ranch also argues that fees awarded pursuant to a statute are analogous to costs, which it contends are imposed jointly and severally.
College Book Centers, Inc. v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners' Ass'n 241 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
College Book Centers, Inc. v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners' Ass'n 241 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See, , (explaining that a purchaser of land who has notice of restrictions placed on the land by agreement is bound to follow the restrictions “because it would be unconscionable and inequitable for him to violate or disregard a valid agreement in regard to the estate of which he had notice wh
Metro Collections v. Meggers 886 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Metro Collections v. Meggers 886 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In considering a different statutory provision, the court had previously held that attorney’s fees based on a statute, rather than the agreement of the parties, constituted “costs.” P.2d 751 (1958).
Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co. 803 P.2d 104 Ariz. 1990
Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co. 803 P.2d 104 Ariz. 1990
-05 , (quoting 4 Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence § 1295 (5th ed.)).
Albins v. Elovitz 791 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Albins v. Elovitz 791 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
§ 25-324 (costs and expenses in a domestic relations action may include attorney’s fees)
Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co. 798 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co. 798 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
see also Rofe v. Robinson, 415 Mich.
Shalimar Ass'n v. D.O.C. Enterprises, Ltd. 688 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Shalimar Ass'n v. D.O.C. Enterprises, Ltd. 688 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Riley v. Stoves, 22 Ariz.App.
Goodman v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF ARIZ. 670 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Goodman v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF ARIZ. 670 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Pinetop Lakes Ass'n v. Hatch 659 P.2d 1341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Pinetop Lakes Ass'n v. Hatch 659 P.2d 1341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass’n v. Esser
Duffy v. Sunburst Farms East Mutual Water & Agricultural Co. 604 P.2d 1124 Ariz. 1979
Duffy v. Sunburst Farms East Mutual Water & Agricultural Co. 604 P.2d 1124 Ariz. 1979
Hueg v. SUNBURST FARMS (GLENDALE) MUT. WATER 594 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Hueg v. SUNBURST FARMS (GLENDALE) MUT. WATER 594 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
20 Am.Jur.2d Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions § 2 at 576.
Duffy v. Sunburst Farms East Mutual Water & Agricultural Co. 604 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Duffy v. Sunburst Farms East Mutual Water & Agricultural Co. 604 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass’n v. Esser
Sweis v. Chatwin 585 P.2d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Sweis v. Chatwin 585 P.2d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
and subsequent Arizona decisions interpreting the *253 provisions for recovery of attorney’s fees in A.R.S.
Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass'n v. Esser 565 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass'n v. Esser 565 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Fort Dodge, Des Moines & Southern Railway v. American Community Stores Corp., 256 Iowa 1344 , 131 N.W.2d 515, 521, 522 (1964).
Donahoe v. Marston 547 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Donahoe v. Marston 547 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Edwards v. Young 486 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1971
Edwards v. Young 486 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1971
at 415 , ; at 307 , ; Harbel Oil Co. v. Steele, supra, 80 Ariz. at 370 , ; In re Gipson’s Estate, at 183 , ; , .
Moschetti v. City of Tucson 449 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Moschetti v. City of Tucson 449 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Patterson v. Patterson 432 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1967
Patterson v. Patterson 432 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1967
Hurst v. Hurst 405 P.2d 913 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Hurst v. Hurst 405 P.2d 913 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Since the perfecting of an appeal within the prescribed period is jurisdictional, , , we hold that the appeal from the order confirming the sale was not timely brought and appellants are precluded from attacking the validity of the sale.
Hammontree v. Kenworthy 404 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Hammontree v. Kenworthy 404 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
B, which provides that in a quiet title action, if there has been a proper tender of a quitclaim deed and $5.00, “the court may allow plaintiff, in addition to the ordinary costs, an attorney’s fee to be fixed by the court.” In Murphey v. Gray (1958), , , it was held that: “ * * * Attorney fees where based directly or indirectly on statute are analogous to and classed in the same category as costs.
Decker v. Hendricks 396 P.2d 609 Ariz. 1964
Decker v. Hendricks 396 P.2d 609 Ariz. 1964
299 P. 132 ; see cases collected in 4 A.L.R.2d 1111 ; 5 Restatement, Property § 564, Comment c; 33 Har v. L.Rev.
Rojas v. Kimble 361 P.2d 403 Ariz. 1961
Rojas v. Kimble 361 P.2d 403 Ariz. 1961
we held that where attorneys fees are allowed by statute that they are to be classed as costs.
Smith v. Second Church of Christ, Scientist, Phoenix 351 P.2d 1104 Ariz. 1960
Smith v. Second Church of Christ, Scientist, Phoenix 351 P.2d 1104 Ariz. 1960
Although the absence of their signatures may not be determinative where-they have accepted and recorded the deed ( , ), nevertheless it tends to refute the conclusion that the restrictions,, which are mentioned therein only by reference, were to be given greater scope and effect than expressed by their terms.
McNeil v. Attaway 348 P.2d 301 Ariz. 1960