Legal Opinion

Guardianship of Monti v. Monti

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided September 12, 1996No. 1 CA-CV 95-0302, 1 CA-CV 95-0540PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

NOYES, Judge.

The question is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to award attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. section 12-349(A)(1) (1992) after entry of final judgment. Declining to follow Hamm v. Y & M Enterprises, Inc., 157 Ariz. 336, 757 P.2d 612 (App.1988), we hold that the rule announced in Mark Lighting Fixture Co. v. General Electric Supply Co., 155 Ariz. 27, 745 P.2d 85 (1987), governs all claims for attorneys’ fees in Arizona, unless a rule of procedure or a statute otherwise provides. Applying the Mark Lighting rule here, we conclude that the trial court lacked…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. Mary Ann Pensiero, Inc. v. LingleCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
  3. State v. HillArizona Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Title Insurance Co. of Minnesota v. Acumen Trading Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Fred Drucker and Jacqueline Drucker v. O'brien's Moving and Storage Inc., Bekins Van Lines Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. National Broker Associates, Inc. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
  2. Britt v. SteffenCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
  3. Sanders v. FoleyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1997
  4. Club West v. Shea homes/the EdgeCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2025
  5. Oursland v. Hon mackey/apsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API