Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Commercial Standard Insurance Co. v. Cleveland, 345 P.2d 210.

26 citing documents.

Tina Zambrano v. M & Rc II LLC Ariz. 2022
Tina Zambrano v. M & Rc II LLC Ariz. 2022
(“[P]arties have a legal right to make such contracts as they desire to make, provided only that the contract shall not be for an illegal purpose or against public policy.
Birth Hope Adoption Agency, Inc. v. Doe 947 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Birth Hope Adoption Agency, Inc. v. Doe 947 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
the court considered whether an indemnitee’s “employment of separate counsel was reasonably necessary, as we understand the law to requireThere, an indemni *289 tee refused the counsel provided by the indemnitor and employed his own counsel.
Mountain State Bolt, Nut & Screw Co. v. Best-Way Transportation 568 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Mountain State Bolt, Nut & Screw Co. v. Best-Way Transportation 568 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
See also, , , ” Thus if the acts to be performed under the contract are themselves illegal or contrary to public policy, or if the legislature has clearly demonstrated its intent to prohibit maintenance of a cause of action, then recovery should be denied.
Henderson Realty v. Mesa Paving Co. 554 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Henderson Realty v. Mesa Paving Co. 554 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Miller and Company of Birmingham v. Louisville & Nashville R.R.
State v. Boykin 538 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1975
State v. Boykin 538 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1975
nd reviewing the memoranda submitted the trial judge concluded “the Court * * * has inherent power to award attorneys’ fees in this class action.” We have repeatedly affirmed our support of the general rule on this point: “It is fundamental, of course, that attorney’s fees are not recoverable in an action unless provided for by contract or statute.” , at 215 (1959).
Hiett v. Howard 494 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hiett v. Howard 494 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Farm & , , Also plaintiff’s contention that he is entitled to a return of the $1500 earnest money deposit arises out of the agreement of sale, which contains no provision for the payment of attorney’s fees for an action based thereon.
Crosby v. Smith 475 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Crosby v. Smith 475 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
34S P.2d 210, 215 (1959) ; In re Balke’s Estate
Farm & Auto Supply v. Phoenix Fuel Co. 442 P.2d 88 Ariz. 1968
Farm & Auto Supply v. Phoenix Fuel Co. 442 P.2d 88 Ariz. 1968
we affirmed a long-standing rule that “It is fundamental * * * that attorney’s fees are not recoverable in an action unless provided for by contract or statute.” The evidence indicates that some form of agreement was made as to price and terms of payment, between plaintiff’s salesman and defendant, pr
State v. Mahoney 441 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1968
State v. Mahoney 441 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1968
United States Fidelity & , ; , 216 P. 1072 .
Ruelas v. Ruelas 436 P.2d 490 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Ruelas v. Ruelas 436 P.2d 490 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Kammert Bros. Enterprises, Inc. v. Tanque Verde Plaza Co. 428 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1967
Kammert Bros. Enterprises, Inc. v. Tanque Verde Plaza Co. 428 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1967
Kammert Bros. Enterprises, Inc. v. Tanque Verde Plaza Co. 420 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Kammert Bros. Enterprises, Inc. v. Tanque Verde Plaza Co. 420 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Galbraith v. Johnston 373 P.2d 587 Ariz. 1962
Galbraith v. Johnston 373 P.2d 587 Ariz. 1962
S. H. Kress & , 189 P. 625 .