17 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Murphy Farrell Development, LLLP v. Sourantgreen2 sentences2024See Murphy Farrell Dev., LLLP v. Sourant, 229 Ariz. 124, 134-35, ¶ 38 (App. 2012) (as amended) (“Applying the ‘totality of the litigation test,’ we conclude neither party is the ‘successful party’ on appeal entitled to taxable costs as both were successful and unsuccessful in equal measure.”); A.R.S. § 12–342. 2014See Murphy Farrell Dev., LLLP v. Sourant, 229 Ariz. 124, 134-35, ¶ 38 , 272 P.3d 355, 365-66 (App. 2012). | 2 | 3 |
Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C.green2 sentences2016Virginia, L.L.C., 228 Ariz. 9, 13-14, ¶ 22 , 261 P.3d 784, 788-89 (App. 2011) (stating trial court has discretion in case involving multiple claims to determine who is the “net winner” or who is the prevailing party based on the “totality of the litigation test.”). 2016Virginia, L.L.C., 228 Ariz. 9, 13-14, ¶ 22 , 261 P.3d 784, 788-89 (App. 2011) (stating trial court has discretion in case involving multiple claims to determine who is the “net winner” or who is the prevailing party based on the “totality of the litigation test.”). | 2 | 2 |
Schwartz v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizonagreen2 sentences2010Co. of Ariz., 166 Ariz. 33, 38 , 800 P.2d 20, 25 (App.1990) (“The trial court may rightfully utilize a ‘percentage of success factor’ or a ‘totality of the litigation’ test ... to determine who was the successful party.”). 2010Co. of Ariz., 166 Ariz. 33, 38 , 800 P.2d 20, 25 (App.1990) (“The trial court may rightfully utilize a ‘percentage of success factor’ or a ‘totality of the litigation’ test ... to determine who was the successful party.”). | 2 | 2 |
Green Acres Trust v. Londongreen1 sentence2024See Green Acres Tr. v. London, 141 Ariz. 609, 613 (1984) (“The [litigation privilege] defense is absolute in that the speaker’s motive, purpose or reasonableness in uttering a false statement [in a judicial proceeding] do not affect the defense.”); see also Goldman, 248 Ariz. at 526, ¶ 47 (a disciplinary proceeding is a “judicial proceeding” for purposes of litigation privilege). | 1 | 1 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Leegreen2 sentences2014The test we apply is “whether the client asserting the privilege has interjected the issue into the litigation and whether the claim of privilege, if upheld, would deny the inquiring party access to proof needed fairly to resist the client’s own evidence on that very issue.” Id. at 62 , 13 P.3d at 1179 (2000) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Law Governing Lawyers § 80 cmt. b). 2014The test we apply is “whether the client asserting the privilege has interjected the issue into the litigation and whether the claim of privilege, if upheld, would deny the inquiring party access to proof needed fairly to resist the client’s own evidence on that very issue.” Id. at 62 , 13 P.3d at 1179 (2000) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Law Governing Lawyers § 80 cmt. b). | 1 | 1 |
Bank One, Arizona v. Rousegreen2 sentences2012A.R.S. § 12-341; see Bank One, Ariz. v. Rouse, 181 Ariz. 36, 41 , 887 P.2d 566, 571 (App.1994) (concluding in context of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 that trial court did not eiT by deciding neither party was “successful party” as they prevailed in equal measure). 2012A.R.S. § 12-341; see Bank One, Ariz. v. Rouse, 181 Ariz. 36, 41 , 887 P.2d 566, 571 (App.1994) (concluding in context of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 that trial court did not eiT by deciding neither party was “successful party” as they prevailed in equal measure). | 1 | 1 |
Sacramento Brewing Co. v. Desmond, Miller & Desmondgreen2 sentences2000In finding the privilege applicable, the court relied heavily on Silberg and determined that because the statements had "some relation" to the lawsuit, the court would decline to "test the outer limits of `relevancy' to determine when a given communication may be deemed `extraneous to the action.'" Id. at 295-96 . ¶ 18 In Sacramento Brewing Co. v. Desmond, Miller & Desmond, the court held that the erroneous identification of the plaintiff as a debtor in the caption of a notice of motion filed in an underlying bankruptcy proceeding was protected by the litigation privilege. 75 Cal.App.4th 1082 2000In finding the privilege applicable, the court relied heavily on Silberg and determined that because the statements had "some relation" to the lawsuit, the court would decline to "test the outer limits of `relevancy' to determine when a given communication may be deemed `extraneous to the action.'" Id. at 295-96 . ¶ 18 In Sacramento Brewing Co. v. Desmond, Miller & Desmond, the court held that the erroneous identification of the plaintiff as a debtor in the caption of a notice of motion filed in an underlying bankruptcy proceeding was protected by the litigation privilege. 75 Cal.App.4th 1082 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sirrah Enterprises LLC v. Wayne Wunderlich Et Ux
green
2 sentences2025Because the Shinnicks are the successful party on appeal against Gipson, the court awards them reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs upon their compliance with ARCAP 21. claims.”) (citing cases); Sirrah Enters., LLC v. Wunderlich, 240 Ariz. 163 , 169 ¶ 16–18 (App. 2016) (affirming use of totality of the litigation test when parties had varied success on their respective claims), vacated on other grounds, 242 Ariz. 542 (2017); cf. Lee v. ING Inv. 2025A claim can be liquidated in a variety of ways, including a pre-filing demand, a claim in a (App. 2025) (in addressing award of costs in case with “mixed” jury verdicts, stating that “[a]lthough the net winner in a case involving competing claims, counterclaims, and setoffs generally qualifies as successful, the court may instead apply a percentage of success or totality of the litigation test when the litigants achieved varied success on multiple claims.”) (citation omitted); Sirrah Enters., LLC v. Wunderlich, 240 Ariz. 163 , 169 ¶¶ 16–18 (App. 2016) (affirming use of totality of the litigati | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Lee v. ING Investment Management, LLC
green
2 sentences2025Mgmt., LLC, 240 Ariz. 158 , 161 ¶ 10 (App. 2016) (noting, where partial summary judgment precluded party “from recovering a significant portion of the damages he sought” and an offer of judgment was accepted obviating a jury trial, “[i]n light of the totality of the litigation, there is a reasonable basis for the superior court’s” successful party conclusion). 11 GIPSON v. SHINNICK, et al. 2025Mgmt., LLC, 240 Ariz. 158 , 161 ¶ 10 (App. 2016) (noting, where partial summary judgment precluded party “from recovering a significant portion of the damages he sought” and an offer of judgment was accepted obviating a jury trial, “[i]n light of the totality of the litigation, there is a reasonable basis for the superior court’s” successful party conclusion). 11 GIPSON v. SHINNICK, et al. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Sirrah Enterprises, LLC v. Wunderlich
green
2 sentences2025Because the Shinnicks are the successful party on appeal against Gipson, the court awards them reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs upon their compliance with ARCAP 21. claims.”) (citing cases); Sirrah Enters., LLC v. Wunderlich, 240 Ariz. 163 , 169 ¶ 16–18 (App. 2016) (affirming use of totality of the litigation test when parties had varied success on their respective claims), vacated on other grounds, 242 Ariz. 542 (2017); cf. Lee v. ING Inv. 2025A claim can be liquidated in a variety of ways, including a pre-filing demand, a claim in a (App. 2025) (in addressing award of costs in case with “mixed” jury verdicts, stating that “[a]lthough the net winner in a case involving competing claims, counterclaims, and setoffs generally qualifies as successful, the court may instead apply a percentage of success or totality of the litigation test when the litigants achieved varied success on multiple claims.”) (citation omitted); Sirrah Enters., LLC v. Wunderlich, 240 Ariz. 163 , 169 ¶¶ 16–18 (App. 2016) (affirming use of totality of the litigati | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Desert Mountain Properties Limited Partnership v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
green
1 sentence2025Co., 225 Ariz. 194 , 212–13 ¶¶ 79–85 (App. 2010) (refusing to apply “totality of the litigation” test when plaintiff recovered net judgment against defendant), aff’d, 226 Ariz. 419 (2011); Crowe v. Gierst, 567 P.3d 759 , 761 ¶ 4, 763 ¶ 16 (App. 2025) (in addressing award of costs in case with “mixed” jury verdicts, stating that “[a]lthough the net winner in a case involving competing claims, counterclaims, and setoffs generally qualifies as successful, the court may instead apply a percentage of success or totality of the litigation test when the litigants achieved varied success on multiple 1 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Desert Mountain Properties Ltd. Partnership v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance
green
1 sentence2025Co., 225 Ariz. 194 , 212–13 ¶¶ 79–85 (App. 2010) (refusing to apply “totality of the litigation” test when plaintiff recovered net judgment against defendant), aff’d, 226 Ariz. 419 (2011); Crowe v. Gierst, 567 P.3d 759 , 761 ¶ 4, 763 ¶ 16 (App. 2025) (in addressing award of costs in case with “mixed” jury verdicts, stating that “[a]lthough the net winner in a case involving competing claims, counterclaims, and setoffs generally qualifies as successful, the court may instead apply a percentage of success or totality of the litigation test when the litigants achieved varied success on multiple 1 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Warner
green
1 sentence2021But the court then found the test unhelpful because the parties had “each successfully defended all fee eligible claims made by the other.” Consequently, the court decided to resolve the issue by examining the seven-factor test articulated by our supreme court in Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567 (1985) and the language of A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A)’s second sentence. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Gastar Exploration LTD v. U. S. Speciality Insurance Co. and Axis Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2016Id. at 584 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Pounders v. ENSERCH E & C, INC.
green
2 sentences2013Applying § 175 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (the “Second Restatement”), the court concluded that New Mexico was the place of injury, id. at 436-39 ¶¶ 9-17, 276 P.3d at 505-08 , and had the “most significant relationship” to the litigation under the factors listed in the Second Restatement §§ 145 and 6, id. at 439-41 ¶¶ 18-24, 276 P.3d at 508-10 . 2013Applying § 175 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (the “Second Restatement”), the court concluded that New Mexico was the place of injury, id. at 436-39 ¶¶ 9-17, 276 P.3d at 505-08 , and had the “most significant relationship” to the litigation under the factors listed in the Second Restatement §§ 145 and 6, id. at 439-41 ¶¶ 18-24, 276 P.3d at 508-10 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Matter of Marquardt
green
2 sentences2007Accordingly, TUSD’s reliance on Anderson is misplaced. ¶ 17 TUSD also cites In re Marquardt, 161 Ariz. 206 , 778 P.2d 241 (1989), in support of its issue preclusion argument. 2007Accordingly, TUSD’s reliance on Anderson is misplaced. ¶ 17 TUSD also cites In re Marquardt, 161 Ariz. 206 , 778 P.2d 241 (1989), in support of its issue preclusion argument. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Passman v. Torkan
green
1 sentence2000In finding the privilege applicable, the court relied heavily on Silberg and determined that because the statements had "some relation" to the lawsuit, the court would decline to "test the outer limits of `relevancy' to determine when a given communication may be deemed `extraneous to the action.'" Id. at 295-96 . ¶ 18 In Sacramento Brewing Co. v. Desmond, Miller & Desmond, the court held that the erroneous identification of the plaintiff as a debtor in the caption of a notice of motion filed in an underlying bankruptcy proceeding was protected by the litigation privilege. 75 Cal.App.4th 1082 | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.