Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Estate of Walton v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue, 794 P.2d 131.

26 citing documents.

Williams v. ades/lamont Ariz. 2026
William Roubos v. Hon. Leslie miller/tucson 153 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2007
William Roubos v. Hon. Leslie miller/tucson 153 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2007
- 10 - ¶19 The fees statute “mandate[s] awards to all parties prevailing against the state [or city], absent an affirmative statutory prohibition.” Estate of Walton v. State, 164 Ariz. 498, 501, (emphasis added); see also Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner
State of Arizona v. Walter James Mangum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Walter James Mangum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
But “the Supreme Court’s interpretation of a similar federal statute is persuasive authority.” 681 P.2d at 231; (“Federal interpretations are ‘persuasive’ when Arizona courts interpret our state counterparts to federal statutes.”); Canady v. Prescott Canyon Estates Homeowners Ass’n, n.3, n.3 (App. 2002) (when provisions of state statute “are virtually identical t
Roubos v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Roubos v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶27 But, in Estate of Walton, P.2d 131 (1990), our supreme court construed § 12-348 “to mandate awards to all parties prevailing against the state, absent an affirmative statutory prohibition,” and quoted its statement in a previous case: “‘So long as the litigation falls within one of the categories of subsection A and is not excluded un
4501 Northpoint LP v. Maricopa County 105 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Eastern Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 79 P.3d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Eastern Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 79 P.3d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 935 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 935 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Estate of Walton, , does not mandate a contrary result.
City of Phoenix v. Paper Distributors of Arizona, Inc. 925 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
City of Phoenix v. Paper Distributors of Arizona, Inc. 925 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
The Arizona Supreme Court has recognized that section 12-348 and other fee award statutes are “very broad exceptions to the American rule barring attorney’s fees.” Estate of Walton, , ( , ).
MVC Construction, Inc. v. Treadway 898 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
MVC Construction, Inc. v. Treadway 898 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Wilderness World, Inc. v. Department of Revenue 895 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1995
Wilderness World, Inc. v. Department of Revenue 895 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1995
§ 2412 , which, as originally enacted, specifically prohibited fee awards if the United States’ position was “substantially justified.” See Estate of Walton, -01 , -34 (1990); Cortaro Waters Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, , 319, , 812 (1986) (noting that the federal “substantial justification” defense provision has since been repealed).
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Estate of Walton, , Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, , 317, , 810 (1986).
Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas 857 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas 857 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Bromley Group, Ltd. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 826 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Bromley Group, Ltd. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 826 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
§ 12-348 in Estate of Walton, , stating: In contrast to federal courts’ narrow construction of EAJA [Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C.
Matter of Estate of Ivester 812 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Matter of Estate of Ivester 812 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
The court’s in rem order of Edna’s status as intestate is binding on all the world, Estate of Walton, , with the statutory exceptions set forth in A.R.S.