Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arnold v. Arizona Department of Health Services, 775 P.2d 521.

124 citing documents.

Keefer v. Keefer 239 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., , ("Attorney's fees should not be limited by the fact that the plaintiffs are indigent and that their attorneys accepted the case on a pro bono basis.”).
John D. Kaufmann v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
John D. Kaufmann v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See Boykin, 112 Ariz. at 113-14, 538 P.2d at 387-88 (listing exceptions); see also Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., (adopting private attorney general doctrine allowing fee award for “vindicating an important public policy”).
Chavez v. Brewer 214 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Chavez v. Brewer 214 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
arty “prevails by an adjudication on the merits in a civil action brought by the party against the state.” Under the private attorney general doctrine, a court may, in its discretion, “award attorney’s fees to a party who has vindicated a right that: (1) benefits a large number of people; (2) requires private enforcement; and (3) is of societal importance.” Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs.
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano 160 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano 160 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
special action proceeding brought by the party to challenge an action by the state against the party.” Under the private attorney general doctrine, a court may, in its discretion, “award attorneys’ fees to a party who has vindicated a right that: 1) benefits a large number of people; 2) requires private em *472 forcement; and 3) is of societal importance.” Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs.
In re MH 2006-000490 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In re MH 2006-000490 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs.
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Carlson v. Arizona State Personnel Board 153 P.3d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Carlson v. Arizona State Personnel Board 153 P.3d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Serv., -09 , -37 (1989).
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
He also is not entitled to the attorney fees he requests under the private attorney general doctrine because he has not “vindicat[ed] an important public policy.” Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., 160 Ariz. 593, 609
In re MH 2004-001987 120 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 120 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In re MH 2004-001987 120 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
-10 , -38 (1989) (observing that the legislature meant to ensure effective mental health services).
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 120 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
-10 , -38 (1989) (observing that the legislature meant to ensure effective mental health services).
Moulton v. Napolitano 73 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Moulton v. Napolitano 73 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
See Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Serv., , (complaint sought relief under federal law, special-action relief and declaratory relief); Tucson Police & Firefighters Ass’n v. City of Tucson, , (eomplaint included two contract counts and third count for special action).
Moedt v. General Motors Corp. 60 P.3d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Moedt v. General Motors Corp. 60 P.3d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
("The private attorney general doctrine is an equitable rule [that] permits courts in their discretion to award attorney's fees to a party who has vindicated a right that: (1) benefits a large number of people; (2) requires private enforcement; and (3) is of societal importance.”).
State v. Meza 50 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty 29 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2001
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty 29 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2001
See Arena, 163 Ariz. at 426 , 788 P.2d at 1177 (citing Arnold v. Dep’t of Health Servs., -07 , -35 (1989) (special action/class action proper in trial court where not expressly precluded)).
State v. Ehrlich 26 P.3d 481 Ariz. 2001
In Re Leon G. 26 P.3d 481 Ariz. 2001
State v. Ehrlich 26 P.3d 481 Ariz. 2001
See Arnold v. Arizona Dep’t of Health Svcs., , see also Robbie Sherwood, Legislators to Try to Override Vetoes, Arizona Republic, May 10, 2001, at B4 (“If lawmakers don’t override Gov.
In Re Leon G. 26 P.3d 481 Ariz. 2001
see also Robbie Sherwood, Legislators to Try to Override Vetoes, Arizona Republic, May 10, 2001, at B4 ("If lawmakers don't override Gov.
Defenders of Wildlife v. Hull 18 P.3d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Defenders of Wildlife v. Hull 18 P.3d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
See Arnold v. Arizona Dep’t of Health Seros.
Jeffries v. Hassell 3 P.3d 1071 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Jeffries v. Hassell 3 P.3d 1071 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
¶ 16 The trial court awarded attorneys’ fees to appellees pursuant to the private attorney general doctrine, which was adopted in Arnold, v. Arizona Dep’t of Health Services
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Tarango 914 P.2d 1300 Ariz. 1996
State v. Tarango 914 P.2d 1300 Ariz. 1996
v. City of Phoenix, , , State v. Superior Court (Kerr-McGee Corp.)
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County of Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592 897 P.2d 742 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County of Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592 897 P.2d 742 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Arnold v. Arizona Dep’t of Health Serv.
Cottonwood/Verde Valley Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Cottonwood Professional Plaza I 901 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Cottonwood/Verde Valley Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Cottonwood Professional Plaza I 901 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Arnold v. Arizona Dep’t of Health Servs.
Third & Catalina Associates v. City of Phoenix 895 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In Re the Appeal in Gila County of Mental Health Case No. MH 92-020 863 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
In Re the Appeal in Gila County of Mental Health Case No. MH 92-020 863 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Inch v. McPherson 859 P.2d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Inch v. McPherson 859 P.2d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas 857 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas 857 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
section 12-2030 or the “private attorney general doctrine”