Legal Opinion
Marsh v. Digital Equipment Corp.
District Court, D. Arizona
Decided July 18, 1988No. CIV 84-1167 PHX CLHPublished
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
HARDY, District Judge.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the plaintiff (“Marsh”) has applied for an award of attorney’s fees and expenses. Because it prevailed on Marsh’s claim for breach of contract, defendant (“Digital”) has petitioned for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01. Marsh’s application will be granted; Digital’s will be denied.
DIGITAL’S APPLICATION
The operative portion of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 reads:
“In any contested action arising out of a contract, express or implied, the court may award the successful party reasonable attorney’s fees.”
D…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
- Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean AirSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean AirSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.