DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite CORTARO WATER USERS'ASS'N v. Steiner, 714 P.2d 807.

25 citing documents.

  • Williams v. ades/lamont Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    an executive body than it is of a superior court as a judicial body.” Id.; see also Evertsen, 117 Ariz. at 342 (adopting our Evertsen opinion in full); cf. Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, (“[T]he vast majority of the time the agency need not take an advocate’s position in the appeal.”).
  • Stephanie Burkett v. John and Anita Dryja Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
    Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, (stating that court rules may provide for attorney-fees recovery).
  • Flores v. La Paz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    § 12-348(H)(1); see also Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, (noting that “[a]n example” of a case in which A.R.S.
  • State v. Series Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    As such, “[s]o long as the litigation falls within one of the categories of subsection A and is not excluded under subsection G [now subsection H] an award of fees is proper.” Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner
  • Johnson v. ades/des Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    See Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, (“An example [of a monetary benefit or its equivalent] is where an applicant is seeking welfare payments or a disability pension payment.”).
  • Orca Communications v. Ann Noder Et vir/pitch Public 337 P.3d 545 Ariz. 2014
    §§ 44-402 (permitting injunctive relief for actual or threatened misappropriation), -404 (permitting award of attorney fees), -405 (preserving the secrecy of alleged trade secrets during litigation); Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, (noting the general rule that attorney fees are not recoverable unless provided for by statute or contract).
  • John D. Kaufmann v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    Discussion ¶7 “In Arizona we follow the general American rule that attorney[] fees are not recoverable unless they are expressly provided for either by statute or contract.” Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, (same).
  • 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
  • Roubos v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    “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 under subsection [H] an award of fees is proper.’” Walton, 164 Ariz. at 501, 794 P.2d at 134, quoting Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner
  • Hatch v. Arizona Department of Transportation 911 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    Power Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, , see also Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, , 356, , 849 (App.1985), aff'd
  • MVC Construction, Inc. v. Treadway 898 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    section 12-348(H)(4) áre Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, , and Mission Hardwood *619
  • 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
    Estate of Walton, , Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, , 317, , 810 (1986).
  • Bromley Group, Ltd. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 826 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    The fees appellants also contend that Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, , , are inapplicable because the instant case does not involve a judicial review of an agency’s quasi-judicial decision.
  • Kromko v. Superior Court 811 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1991
    See Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, , 316, , 809 (1986) (Arizona follows the general American rule that each party must bear its own fees absent authority under statute or contract directing otherwise); -09 , -37 (1989) (notwithstanding the American rule, courts may awar
  • Estate of Walton v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue 794 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1990
    Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, , 318, , 811 (1986); see also State Bar of Arizona, Arizona Attorneys’ Fees Manual § 4.4, at 4-3 (1987).
  • Lincoln Fosseat Associates v. Arizona Department of Revenue 804 P.2d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    See Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, , 319, , 812 (1986).
  • Arizona Tax Research Ass'n v. Department of Revenue 787 P.2d 1051 Ariz. 1989
    The court of appeals also relied on Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, , for the proposition that “the nominal party exclusion attaches as long as the agency simply certifies the record and answers the complaint, but does not take an active part in the proceedings.” Arizona Tax Research Ass’n, 162 Ariz. at 97 , 781 P.2d at 74 .
  • City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley 790 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    § 45-401(B) and Cortaro Water Users Ass’n v. Steiner, , 345, , 838 (App.1985), approved
  • Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 781 P.2d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    The fees appellants also contend that Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, , , are inapplicable because the instant case does not involve a judicial review of an agency’s quasi-judicial decision.
  • Arizona Tax Research Ass'n v. Maricopa County 781 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    Although appellant cites Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, , for the proposition that a state agency which is required to be a party by statute cannot be a nominal party, that case in fact holds quite the opposite.
  • Distinguished Stewart Title & Trust of Tucson v. Pima County 751 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
    New Pueblo Constructors, , and Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, , relied upon by the Department, are distinguishable.
  • Phillips v. Clancy 733 P.2d 300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    See Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, , 318, , 811 (1986).
  • Sanchez-O'Brien Minerals Corp. v. State 717 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    See Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’ , rev’d on other grounds
  • Mission Hardwood Co. v. Registrar of Contractors 716 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    In Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’ , the Arizona Supreme Court noted that, pursuant to A.R.S.