DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite William Roubos v. Hon. Leslie miller/tucson, 153 P.3d 1045.

40 citing documents.

  • In RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    ¶ 21 (2007) (noting that a party must state the statutory or contractual basis when requesting attorneys’ fees).
  • Irep v. Feucht Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Irep v. Feucht Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶ 21 (2007) ("When a party requests fees, it .
  • Socaa v. Dtt Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Socaa v. Dtt Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    When a party requests attorney’s fees on appeal, it “must state the statutory or contractual basis for the award.” ¶ 21 (2007).
  • State v. Series Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Series Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    In enacting § 12-348, the Legislature expressed its intention to “reduce the deterrents and the disparity” of defending claims brought by the State “by entitling prevailing parties to recover an award of reasonable attorney fees, expert witness fees and other costs.” ¶ 16 (2007) (quoting 1981 Ariz. Sess.
  • Burney v. Huntimer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Burney v. Huntimer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    See ARCAP 21(a)(2) (“A claim for fees under this Rule must specifically state the statute, rule, decisional law, contract, or other authority for an award of attorneys’ fees.”); ¶ 21 (2007) (holding a party “must state the statutory or contractual basis” for an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to ARCAP 21); ¶ 31 (App. 2010) (explaining ARCAP 21 “is a procedural rule that does not provide a substantive basis for an appellate court to consider an award
  • Best v. Holliday Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Best v. Holliday Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶ 21 (2007) ("When a party requests fees, it .
  • Vera v. Hon rogers/chaidez 433 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Vera v. Hon rogers/chaidez 433 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    4(g) (Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure apply to the extent not inconsistent with these rules); ¶ 21 (2007).
  • Johnson v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Johnson v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 21 (2007); see also 3 The stipulated DRO describes the numerator/denominator for determining Wife's fractional interest as follows: Months married as Member (through January 1, 1999) / Total months as a Member x 1/2 = Alternate Payee's Portion.
  • Davidsonlaw v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Davidsonlaw v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See ARCAP 21(a)(2); ¶ 21 (2007) (explaining that “[w]hen a party requests fees, it .
  • Comanche v. Pollard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Comanche v. Pollard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See ARCAP 21(a)(2); ¶ 21 (2007) (noting a party’s request for attorneys’ fees must include the statutory or contractual basis 6 COMANCHE v. POLLARD Decision of the Court for the award).
  • Mary Anna Sotomayor v. Pauline Sotomayor-Munoz 370 P.3d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • Mary Anna Sotomayor v. Pauline Sotomayor-Munoz 370 P.3d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    (party must state statutory or contractual basis for fee award); Grand Canyon Pipelines, (exercising discretion to decline fee request unsupported by argument or citation to authority).
  • Bank of America v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Bank of America v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • In Re the Marriage of Kassa 299 P.3d 1290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • In Re the Marriage of Kassa 299 P.3d 1290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • Moreno v. Silva 296 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson 278 P.3d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson 278 P.3d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    (party requesting attorney fees required to “state the statutory or contractual basis for the award”).
  • Best v. Miranda 274 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Best v. Miranda 274 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    ¶ 21 , (“When a party requests fees, it ...
  • Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    ¶ 21 , (“When a party requests fees, it not only must state the statutory or contractual basis for the award, but also must make the request in a timely manner.”).
  • In Re the Marriage of Williams 200 P.3d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • In Re the Marriage of Williams 200 P.3d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    (party requesting fees must state statutory or contractual basis for award).
  • In Re Guardianship of Pacheco 199 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • In Re Guardianship of Pacheco 199 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    (party requesting fees must state statutory or contractual basis for award).
  • State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Waldren 171 P.3d 1214 Ariz. 2007
  • State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Waldren 171 P.3d 1214 Ariz. 2007
    A. Jurisdiction to Modify or Terminate ¶ 7 Interpreting a statute requires us to “look to its language as ‘the best and most reliable index of [the] statute’s meaning.’” ¶ 7 , (quoting N. Valley Emergency Specialists, ¶ 9 , ).
  • Catrone v. Miles 160 P.3d 1204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Catrone v. Miles 160 P.3d 1204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    ence, having used that term in a great number of statutes”); , (“Because the legislature obviously knew how to require a jury finding when that was its intention and did not make such a provision here, we conclude that the legislature did not intend for seriousness to require a separate finding by the trier of fact.”); ¶20 , (“The legislature knows *456 how to exempt proceedings when it wishes to do so, and it has not chosen to exempt civil infraction proceedings.”) (citation omitted).