 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Midland Risk Management Co. v. Watford6/30/1994
fees in an action arising out of contract." We also note that appellees failed to raise this issue by cross-appeal. Absent a cross-appeal, an appellate court may not alter the lower court's judgment "to enlarge the rights of the appellee." See Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas, 175 Ariz. 417, 857 P.2d 1271 (App. 1992); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(b)(3), 17B A.R.S. Moreover, even if the issue were properly raised, the Watfords offer no reason for their failure to comply with Rule 3.7(e)(1).
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellees' timely request for fees and costs on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 is granted upon compliance with Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 21(c), 17B A.R.S.
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING:
WILLIAM E. DRUKE, Chief Judge
JAMES D. HATHAWAY, Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|