Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ezell v. Quon

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided June 17, 2010No. 1 CA-CV 09-0297Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGemmill, Judge

¶ 36 For the reasons explained by my colleagues in the majority decision, I concur in affirming the trial court’s denial of Quon’s motion to set aside the default judgment. But I respectfully dissent from the majority’s refusal to award the prevailing party, Ezell, an amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A). The majority denies Ezell’s request for fees because he failed to cite § 12-341.01 in his answering brief or otherwise on appeal. On this record, I disagree with this conclusion and the mechanical approach it represents, and I would award Ezell an…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. AguilarArizona Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Nielson v. PattersonArizona Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Superior CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1997
  4. Prendergast v. City of TempeCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
  5. Sharpe v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment SystemCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API