Skip to main content
· 9/1/1987

Hunt Investment Co. v. Eliot

Citations

  • 742 P.2d 858
  • 154 Ariz. 357
  • 1987 Ariz. App. LEXIS 504

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that the attorney could recover fees when he represented a partnership in which he owned a 4 PORTHOS v. PULITO Decision of the Court majority interest because he was acting for the benefit of others, as well as himself
  • explaining that parties who represent themselves are not entitled to attorneys’ fees
  • holding an attorney could recover fees when the attorney represented an investment partnership that could not represent itself but in which the attorney owned a majority interest because he was acting for the benefit of others and himself
  • upholding the trial court’s use of the Schwartz factors to determine the amount of fees awarded
  • lien purchasers risk possibility of redemption for opportunity to “benefit greatly”
  • non-licensed attorney cannot represent other parties

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Greer, Grant, Froeb

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.