Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., 396 P.3d 600.

56 citing documents.

Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 15 (2017) (citing cases).
Stephanie Burkett v. John and Anita Dryja Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Stephanie Burkett v. John and Anita Dryja Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc.
Tempe v. Lejas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Tempe v. Lejas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 12 (2017).
Heritage v. Pacheco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Heritage v. Pacheco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶¶ 14–15 (2017) (relying on A.R.S.
Wharton v. Jr Property Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Wharton v. Jr Property Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Power Prod., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc.
Jose R. Aroca and Kirstin Aroca v. Tang Investment Company, LLC ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Jose R. Aroca and Kirstin Aroca v. Tang Investment Company, LLC ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc.
Panto v. Sines Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Panto v. Sines Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 15 (2017).
Stucky v. Tjc Training Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Stucky v. Tjc Training Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
She also does not challenge the 1 Our supreme court later held that § 12-341.01(A) applies unless it “effectively conflicts with an express contractual provision governing recovery of attorney’s fees.” American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶¶ 13–14 (2017) ().
Palestina v. McMillin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Palestina v. McMillin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc.
Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 20 (2017) (quotations omitted)).
Berghoff v. Gerdts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Berghoff v. Gerdts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Power Products v. CSK Auto, Inc., –71, ¶ 25 (2017).
Lavicka v. Lavicka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Lavicka v. Lavicka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., –68, ¶¶ 13–14 (2017).
Jtf Aviation v. Cliftonlarsonallen LLP Ariz. 2020
Jtf Aviation v. Cliftonlarsonallen LLP Ariz. 2020
Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 12 (2017).
Wells Fargo v. Terrenate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Wells Fargo v. Terrenate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Power Prod., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 14 (2017).
Schenk v. Casebolt II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Schenk v. Casebolt II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See also American Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 14 (2017) (noting A.R.S.
Greenberg v. McGowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Greenberg v. McGowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 14 (2017) ().
Sheridan v. Swartz & Brough Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sheridan v. Swartz & Brough Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 14 (2017) ().
Johnson v. Queen creek/acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Johnson v. Queen creek/acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Power Prod., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 22 (2017) (parties are free to define terms “[a]s long as the contract is legal and enforceable”).
Otto v. Otto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Otto v. Otto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
The Trial Court’s Award of Attorneys’ Fees ¶33 Citing American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., Mark argues the trial court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees to Alan under A.R.S.
Sunflower v. Ahcccs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sunflower v. Ahcccs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 12 (2017) (contracts); Ballesteros v. Am.
Ogden v. Disys Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ogden v. Disys Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ogden v. Disys Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 14 (2017) (quotation omitted).
Ogden v. Disys Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 14 (2017) (quotation omitted).
Thommi v. Fisher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Thommi v. Fisher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 20 (2017) (quoting Hall v. Read Dev., Inc., ¶ 18 (App. 2012)).
Viking v. Link Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Viking v. Link Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Power Prod., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 12 (2017) (contract interpretation); –47, ¶ 16 (App. 2005) (“reasonable-expectations claims may present questions of both fact and law,” and we will apply the clear-error standard to review factual findings, but “[w]e will review the trial court’s conclusions o
Southwest v. Sbbi, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Southwest v. Sbbi, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 12 (2017).