Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Schwartz v. Schwerin, 336 P.2d 144.

89 citing documents.

United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc. 673 P.2d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc. 673 P.2d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
The elements to be considered in determining a reasonable attorneys’
Roberts v. Morgensen Motors 659 P.2d 1307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Roberts v. Morgensen Motors 659 P.2d 1307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Myers v. Western Realty & Construction, Inc. 635 P.2d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Myers v. Western Realty & Construction, Inc. 635 P.2d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Paul Schoonover, Inc. v. Ram Construction Inc. 630 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1981
Paul Schoonover, Inc. v. Ram Construction Inc. 630 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1981
Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co. 603 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co. 603 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Malouf argues that Fairway’s claims for extras could not be liquidated until judgment because they were based on a quantum meruit theory
Czarnecki v. Czarnecki 600 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Czarnecki v. Czarnecki 600 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
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
49 , , cited by appellees, are not in point in that they were not concerned with contractual provisions for attorneys’ fees.
Hammer v. City of Tucson 547 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Hammer v. City of Tucson 547 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
United States F. & , 186 P. 502 (1920) , ; 63A West Annot.
Trollope v. Koerner 515 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Trollope v. Koerner 515 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Floral Lakes, Inc. v. Patton 513 P.2d 672 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Floral Lakes, Inc. v. Patton 513 P.2d 672 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
The defendant corporation’s , is misplaced.
Hine v. Superior Court 504 P.2d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hine v. Superior Court 504 P.2d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. O'Malley Lumber Co. 484 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. O'Malley Lumber Co. 484 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
If the claim is unliquidated and is in dispute no interest is allowed upon the theory that the person liable does not know the sum he owes and therefore can be in no default for not paying.” The rule that there could be no prejudgment interest on “unliquidated” -250 , which involved a quantum meruit claim for services rendered.
Hawkinson Tire Co. v. Paul E. Hawkinson Co. 476 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Hawkinson Tire Co. v. Paul E. Hawkinson Co. 476 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Trollope v. Koerner 470 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1970
Trollope v. Koerner 470 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1970
Evans v. Scottsdale Plumbing Company 457 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Evans v. Scottsdale Plumbing Company 457 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
McCune v. Dynamics Research, Inc., 8 Ariz.App.
Standage v. Tarpey 446 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Standage v. Tarpey 446 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Ulan v. Richtars 446 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Ulan v. Richtars 446 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
There we considered that a fraud claim was unliquidated so that under the rule adopted by our Supreme Court, , it could only bear interest from judgment Other courts have taken a similar view.
Cole v. Gerhart 423 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Cole v. Gerhart 423 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Feighner v. Clarke 408 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Feighner v. Clarke 408 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
it was held that on an unliquidated claim interest should only be allowed from date of judgment.” at 250 , at 149 (1959).