21 Ariz. App. 43 - Trollope v. Koerner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 68 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The successful party to a civil action shall recover from his adversary all costs expended or incurred therein unless otherwise provided by law.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Watson Construction Co. v. Amfac Mortgage Corp. · Waqui v. Tanner Bros. Contracting Co., Inc.

2. ““Thus the question becomes who was the ‘successful party’ at the trial level? The appellants recovered $791.75 on their complaint, only a small percentage of the $6000-plus prayed for, while the appellees recovered 100% of the $500 prayed for in their counterclaim. Judgment was entered in favor of the appellants in the amount of the difference, namely $291.75. ****** “The general rule concerning the ‘successful party’ is found in 20 C.J.S. Costs § 12 (1940), which states that where a counterclaim or setoff has been allowed, in whole or in part, the party in whose favor final judgment is rendered will be entitled to recover his costs. Thus a party will be ‘successful’ if he obtains judgment for an amount in excess of the setoff or counterclaim allowed, (citations omitted) This question has never been presented before in Arizona, and we are of the opinion that the general rule enumerated above is the proper interpretation of ‘successful party’ in A.R.S. § 12-341. We hold that since the appellants’ recovery of $791.75 exceeded that of appellees’ compulsory counterclaim recovery of $500, the ‘net judgment’ being in appellants’ favor for $291.75, the trial court erred by not awarding the ‘successful’ appellants their costs. * * * ” Trollope v. Koemer, 21 Ariz.App. 43, 47 , 515 P.2d 340, 344 (1973).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Watson Construction Co. v. Amfac Mortgage Corp. · Ocean West Contractors, Inc. v. Halec Construction Co.

3. ““54(f) Costs. A party who claims costs shall file a statement of his costs and serve a copy thereof on the opposing party. The statement shall be filed and served within ten days after judgment, unless for good cause shown the time is extended by the court. At any time within five days after receipt of the copy of the statement of costs, the opposing party may file objections to the statement serving a copy thereof on the party claiming such costs. The court shall pass upon the objections and by its order correct the statement of costs to the extent that it requires correction.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Watson Construction Co. v. Amfac Mortgage Corp. · Trimble Cattle Co. v. Henry