DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

59 citing documents.

  • 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).
  • Botto v. Botto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Botto v. Botto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Power Prod., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., -68 ¶¶ 13, 14 (2017).
  • Kasson v. Burgener Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Kasson v. Burgener Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 12 (2017).
  • Sundance v. Glawe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Sundance v. Glawe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    § 12-341.01(A), “[i]n any contested action arising out of a contract, express or implied, the court may award the successful party reasonable attorney fees.” A “court’s determination of which party is successful and thus entitled to a fee award generally will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion.” American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 12 (2017).