Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Schade v. Diethrich, 760 P.2d 1050.

85 citing documents.

Douglas v. Governing Board of the Window Rock Consolidated School District No. 8 78 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
See *349 , (“The treble damage statute deters employers from withholding or delaying payment of sums which employees have earned, and protects employees from an employer’s groundless refusal to pay compensation which was promised and which was due ‘in return for work performed.’ ” (Citations omitt
Althaus v. Penn-America Ins. Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Althaus v. Penn-America Ins. Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Tabler v. Industrial Comm’n, 202 Ariz. 518, ¶7, P.2d 1050 (1988); AROK Constr.
Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc. 43 P.3d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc. 43 P.3d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
severance pay.”); Velarde v. PACE Membership Warehouse, Inc., 105 F.3d 1313, 1318 (9th Cir.1997)
Johnson International, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 967 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Johnson International, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 967 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
AROK, 174 Ariz. at 299 , 848 P.2d at 878 ; see also
Crum v. Maricopa County 950 P.2d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Crum v. Maricopa County 950 P.2d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See, -14 , -63 (1988) (imposition of treble damages under statute is subject to review for abuse *515 of discretion); Sanborn, 178 Ariz. at 429 , 874 P.2d at 986 (employers who fail to tender payment knowingly owed to employees face the “possibility” of treble damages under A.R.S.
Bilke v. State 938 P.2d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Bilke v. State 938 P.2d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn 907 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn 907 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
A party’s entitlement to prejudgment interest depends on whether his or her claim is “liquidated.”
Sanborn v. Brooker & Wake Property Management, Inc. 874 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Sanborn v. Brooker & Wake Property Management, Inc. 874 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Patton, 154 Ariz. at 172 , 741 P.2d at 305 ; , 646 P.2d.
In Re the Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, Coconino County No. MH 1425 862 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
In Re the Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, Coconino County No. MH 1425 862 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Cox Arizona Publications v. Collins 852 P.2d 1194 Ariz. 1993
Cox Arizona Publications v. Collins 852 P.2d 1194 Ariz. 1993
AROK Construction Co. v. Indian Construction Services 848 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
AROK Construction Co. v. Indian Construction Services 848 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
During our consideration of this matter, we asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs on the impact, if any, of the Arizona Supreme Court’s , on the application of Savoca Masonry v. Homes & Son Construction Co., , to the instant appeal.
DKI Corp./Sylvan Pools v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 845 P.2d 461 Ariz. 1993
DKI Corp./Sylvan Pools v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 845 P.2d 461 Ariz. 1993
See, , (citing cases); , (citing cases); -56 , -08 (1984) (citing cases).
A.R. Teeters & Associates, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. 836 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
A.R. Teeters & Associates, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. 836 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Employer's Mutual Casualty Co. v. McKeon 821 P.2d 766 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Employer's Mutual Casualty Co. v. McKeon 821 P.2d 766 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
To define “liquidated,” Arizona courts have adopted C. McCormick, Damages § 54 (1935), which provides that “[a] claim is liquidated if the evidence furnishes data which, if believed, makes it possible to compute the amount with exactness, without reliance upon opinion or discretion.” , Trus Joist Corp., 153 Ariz. at 109 , 735 P.2d at 139 ; O’Malley Lbr.
Brooks v. Zahn 826 P.2d 1171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Brooks v. Zahn 826 P.2d 1171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Rogus v. Lords 804 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Rogus v. Lords 804 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
McIntyre Refrigeration, Inc. v. Mepco Electra 799 P.2d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
McIntyre Refrigeration, Inc. v. Mepco Electra 799 P.2d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See Rule 52(a), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure
Croci v. Travelers Insurance 788 P.2d 79 Ariz. 1990
Croci v. Travelers Insurance 788 P.2d 79 Ariz. 1990
Of course, “[w]ho is the ‘successful party’ is never certain until the appeal process is concluded.”