Cited by

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

124 citing documents.

State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Tocco 845 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Tocco 845 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest v. Hassell 837 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest v. Hassell 837 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Appellants request an award of attorneys’
Chalmers v. City of Tucson 829 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Chalmers v. City of Tucson 829 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
§ 12-2030 (mandamus actions) , (private attorney general doctrine).
Kromko v. Superior Court 811 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1991
Kromko v. Superior Court 811 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1991
See Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, , 316, , 809 (1986) (Arizona follows the general American rule that each party must bear its own fees absent authority under statute or contract directing otherwise); -09 , -37 (1989) (notwithstanding the American rule, courts may award attorneys’ fees under equitable rules, including the private attorney general doctrine).
Libra Group, Inc. v. State 805 P.2d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Libra Group, Inc. v. State 805 P.2d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Arnold v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 805 P.2d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Arnold v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 805 P.2d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
That doctrine permits a fee award 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.”
Chaffin v. Commissioner of Arizona Department of Real Estate 793 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Chaffin v. Commissioner of Arizona Department of Real Estate 793 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Chavarria v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 798 P.2d 1343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Chavarria v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 798 P.2d 1343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
we do not think that it applies in this case.
Andrew S. Arena, Inc. v. Superior Court 788 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1990
Andrew S. Arena, Inc. v. Superior Court 788 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1990
-607 , -35 (1989) (special action/class action proper in trial court where rules do not indicate such litigation is impermissible).
State v. Brock 789 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Brock 789 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Bishop 781 P.2d 581 Ariz. 1989
State v. Bishop 781 P.2d 581 Ariz. 1989
See Arnold v. Ari *108 zona Department of Health Services
Corley v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 775 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Corley v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 775 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
our supreme court adopted the private attorney general doctrine and awarded attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs.