Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Crouch v. Pixler, 320 P.2d 943.

32 citing documents.

Ohliger v. Carondelet St. Mary's Hospital & Health Center 845 P.2d 523 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Ohliger v. Carondelet St. Mary's Hospital & Health Center 845 P.2d 523 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
McIntyre Refrigeration, Inc. v. Mepco Electra 799 P.2d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
McIntyre Refrigeration, Inc. v. Mepco Electra 799 P.2d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Crews v. Collins 680 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Crews v. Collins 680 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
The promissory note provided: “If this note is placed in the hands of an attorney for collection we agree to pay a reasonable attorney fee.” Defendants argue that by this provision, the parties contemplated an award of “reasonable” , for the proposition that where reasonable fees are contractually provided, it is error for the court to fix the amount in the absence of proof establishing what is a reasonable fee.
Grant Road Lumber Co. v. Wystrach 682 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Grant Road Lumber Co. v. Wystrach 682 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
and Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.
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
And, in an action arising under a contract which contained a provision for the payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees, the supreme court, without setting forth the components of a reasonable fee, held that it is error to award fees absent any proof of what is “reasonable.”
Taylor v. Security National Bank 514 P.2d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Taylor v. Security National Bank 514 P.2d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Concannon v. Yewell, 16 Ariz.App.
Concannon v. Yewell 493 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Concannon v. Yewell 493 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
wherein our Supreme Court held: “.
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
Thompson v. Harris 452 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Thompson v. Harris 452 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Barnett v. Hitching Post Lodge, Inc. 421 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1966
Barnett v. Hitching Post Lodge, Inc. 421 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1966
Norvelle v. Lucas 415 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Norvelle v. Lucas 415 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
We believe the burden of proof was upon the defendant to substantiate the proper amount to charge the association for these fees, Crouch v. H. A. Pixler & Son, , and we hold that the defendant failed in his proof in this regard.
Shetter v. Rochelle 411 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Shetter v. Rochelle 411 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
This decision interprets a previous decision of our Supreme Court, , in that portion thereof which ordered: “The judgment as to the $2,500 is affirmed, and reversed as to the $800 attorney’s fees.” The second decision held that the above order was intended to cause judgment to be entered for the defendant as to the $800.00 claim for attorney’s fees beca
Elson Development Co. v. Arizona Savings & Loan Ass'n 407 P.2d 930 Ariz. 1965
Elson Development Co. v. Arizona Savings & Loan Ass'n 407 P.2d 930 Ariz. 1965
we stated: “ * * * the courts generally hold that to justify a finding of reasonable attorney’s fees there must be evidence in support of such finding.
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
This court, however, does not believe the doctrine of Crouch v. Pixler (1958), , , is controlling.
Frank v. Solomon 381 P.2d 591 Ariz. 1963
Frank v. Solomon 381 P.2d 591 Ariz. 1963
Crouch v. Truman 328 P.2d 614 Ariz. 1958
Crouch v. Truman 328 P.2d 614 Ariz. 1958
On appeal, , , this court affirmed the judgment as to the $2,500 and reversed as to the attorney fees in the following language: “The judgment as to the $2,500 is affirmed, and reversed as to the $800 attorney’s fees.” The Pixlers moved for rehearing requesting us to modify and amplify the decision so as to rem

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by