Legal Opinion
Thompson v. Corry
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided November 15, 2012No. 1 CA-CV 11-0729PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
TIMMER, Presiding Judge.
¶ 1 This appeal requires us to decide whether the family court is authorized by Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 25-324 (West 2012)1 or Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure (“Rule”) 92(E)(2) to award attorney’s fees to a party represented by pro bono counsel and, if so, whether those fees should be calculated on a cost basis or by using the prevailing market rate for the attorney’s services. For the reasons that follow, the family court properly awarded fees to appellee Dana Corry Thompson (“Mother”) based on the prevailing market rate for her pro…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Serrano v. UnruhCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1983
- State of Illinois v. Sangamo Construction Co. And J. L. Simmons Company, Inc., DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
- City of Tempe v. StateCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
- tempe/chavez v. state/brnovichCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015