Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Walter Ansley v. Banner Health Network, 459 P.3d 55.
- LYONS v. PHOENIX Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-
LYONS v. PHOENIX
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶19 “To receive an award of attorneys’ fees under the private attorney general doctrine, the prevailing party must ‘vindicate[ ] a right that (1) benefits a large number of people, (2) requires private enforcement, and (3) is of societal importance.’” ¶ 30 (App. 2024) ( ¶ 39 (2020)).
- Horne v. Hobbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Horne v. Hobbs
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
§ 12-1842, the plaintiff must have an underlying cause of action, ¶ 31 (2020).
- Allison Bradford; Michael Carlson and Adrian Wurr v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
-
Allison Bradford; Michael Carlson and Adrian Wurr v. City of Tucson
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
¶¶ 39, 44 (2020) (court may award attorney fees in its discretion).
- Lane v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Lane v. Scottsdale
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
To receive an award of attorneys’ fees under the private attorney general doctrine, the prevailing party must “vindicate[] a right that (1) benefits a large number of people, (2) requires private enforcement, and (3) is of societal importance.” ¶ 40 (2020).
- Potter v. Ehrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Potter v. Ehrich
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 39 (2020) (“Fees are permissible under the private attorney general doctrine for 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.”).
- Brown v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Brown v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, Inc. v. Ann English Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
-
Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, Inc. v. Ann English
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
§§ 12-341, 12-348, 12-1840, 12-2030, ¶¶ 38-39 (2020) (describing “the private attorney general doctrine”), but provides no further explanation supporting its entitlement to attorney fees.
- Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Az Free Enterprise Club v. Katie Hobbs Ariz. 2022
-
Az Free Enterprise Club v. Katie Hobbs
Ariz. 2022
The private attorney general doctrine is an equitable rule that allows a court to award 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.” ¶ 39 (2020).
- Arizona School Boards Assoc v. State Ariz. 2022
-
Arizona School Boards Assoc v. State
Ariz. 2022
e. That doctrine is an equitable rule that allows a 15 ARIZONA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, INC. ET AL. V. STATE Opinion of the Court court to award 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.” ¶ 39 (2020).
- Cvs Pharmacy v. Hon. bostwick/tucson Medical Ariz. 2021
-
Cvs Pharmacy v. Hon. bostwick/tucson Medical
Ariz. 2021
¶ 45 (2020) (holding that the lien statutes cannot allow hospitals to recover the costs of medical care beyond the amounts provided by Medicaid).
-
Grunwald v. Scottsdale Healthcare
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 34 (2020) (holding federal statute “prohibiting direct balance billing .
-
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona
493 P.3d 246
Ariz. 2021
021) (holding that statute requiring “political subdivisions” to consolidate local, state, and national elections after low voter turnout in a local election was unconstitutional as applied to charter cities whose charters require separate local elections but otherwise constitutionally applies to non-charter cities and charter cities without conflicting charters); ¶ 36 (2020) (holding that hospital lien statutes are unconstitutional as applied to secure payment from third-party tortfeasors for b
- State of Arizona v. David Joseph Duffy 486 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2021
-
State of Arizona v. David Joseph Duffy
486 P.3d 197
Ariz. 2021
We consider questions of law de novo, ¶ 8 (2020), and have jurisdiction pursuant to article 6, section 5, clause 3 of the Arizona Constitution.