Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Richey, 774 P.2d 1354.

43 citing documents.

Tope v. Magnus Title Agency, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶22 require the court to “set forth the specific reasons” for a fee award made under A.R.S.
Starr Surplus v. Transwestern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Starr Surplus v. Transwestern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§§ 12-341.01(C) and 12-349, no such requirement exists for an award of fees under § 12- 341.01(A), see Associated Indem., 143 Ariz. at 571.
Kostadinova v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Kostadinova v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶13 “The trial court must make specific findings to justify its conclusion that a party’s claims or defenses are frivolous.” Smith, 166 Ariz. at 497 ().
Shoemake v. Estancia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shoemake v. Estancia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶58 “Proper specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that demonstrate the application of the statute’s language greatly assist an appellate court on review.”
Vidales v. Huth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Vidales v. Huth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 12-350); -66, -56 (1989) (reversing an attorneys’ fees award based on the superior court’s failure to enter specific findings).
Cornerstone v. Kozub Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Cornerstone v. Kozub Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(stating superior court’s only finding that defense presented frivolous allegations did not constitute sufficient findings to support sanctions).
Bennett James L. Bennett Money Purchase Pension Plan Meyerstein v. Baxter Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Bennett James L. Bennett Money Purchase Pension Plan Meyerstein v. Baxter Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
John D. Kaufmann v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
John D. Kaufmann v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶9 Section 12-341.01(C), A.R.S., similarly provides, “The court shall award reasonable attorney fees in any contested action upon clear and convincing evidence that the claim or defense constitutes harassment, is groundless and is not made in good faith.” (“[C]ontexts in which 5 § 12-341.01(C) applies may often overlap those in which § 12-349 applies.”).
VICARI v. Lake Havasu City 213 P.3d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
VICARI v. Lake Havasu City 213 P.3d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
§ 12-350; , (holding trial court’s finding that claim was frivolous insufficient to meet statutory requirement that claim “constitutes harassment, is groundless and not made in good faith”).
Reid v. Reid 213 P.3d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Reid v. Reid 213 P.3d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 17 , our supreme court held that, although not required statutorily, specific findings of fact and conclusions of law must be made by a trial court in awarding attorneys’ fees under A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Shipman Sweeney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Shipman Sweeney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
¶4 The state contends in its reply brief that Rule 11 does not apply to anything but civil proceedings, P.2d 1354 (1989), P.2 d 464 (App .
Johnson v. Mohave County 78 P.3d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Johnson v. Mohave County 78 P.3d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
¶ 17 Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-350 (1992), which governs attorneys’ fees awarded pursuant to § 12-349, requires the trial court to “set forth specific reasons for the award.” , (holding the trial court’s “simple finding” of “frivolous” to be insufficient to justify an award).
Amancio v. Forster 993 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Amancio v. Forster 993 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(a defendant charged with misdemeanor sale of liquor to a minor, subject to a maximum of up to six months in jail and a fine of $300, was not entitled to a jury); , rev.d in part on other grounds, , (fines of $400 and $750 and four months in jail for driving without a license and failure to register a vehicle are not severe and do not implicate morality); , (one charged with running a red light, no proof of insurance, and driving witho
Fisher Ex Rel. Fisher v. National General Insurance 965 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Fisher Ex Rel. Fisher v. National General Insurance 965 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Gilbert v. Board of Med.
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of Corrections 934 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of Corrections 934 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
section 12-350 , (requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law under both A.R.S.
Trantor v. Fredrikson 878 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1994
Trantor v. Fredrikson 878 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1994
we held that a trial court must make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in awarding attorneys’ fees under A.R.S.
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Western Technologies, Inc. 877 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Western Technologies, Inc. 877 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Protection 868 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Protection 868 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(trial court must set forth specific findings to justify an award of fees pursuant to A.R.S.
Trantor v. Fredrikson 861 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Trantor v. Fredrikson 861 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
that a trial court must make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law in awarding attorney’s fees under either A.R.S, §§ 12-341.01(0) or 12-349: Because [A.R.S.
State v. Miller 836 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Miller 836 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
vacated in part on other grounds
Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Smith 803 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Smith 803 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Matter of Estate of Groves 788 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Matter of Estate of Groves 788 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990