DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hirt v. Hervey, 578 P.2d 624.

30 citing documents.

  • Holaday v. Foremost Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Holaday v. Foremost Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    ¶16 Appraisal decisions are generally “entitled to the same degree of finality accorded decisions of arbitrators.” Hanson, 150 Ariz. at 285 ().
  • Anderson v. State Farm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Anderson v. State Farm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    Hanson, 150 Ariz. at 285 ().
  • Zahler v. Swift Transportation Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Zahler v. Swift Transportation Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    In Arizona, “an arbitration award is not subject to attack merely because one party believes that the arbitrators erred with respect to factual determinations or legal interpretations.”
  • Singh Roofing v. Shadowood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Singh Roofing v. Shadowood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    “[A]n arbitration award is not subject to attack merely because one party believes that the arbitrators erred with respect to factual determinations or legal interpretations.”
  • Richert v. Buck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Richert v. Buck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    v. Stardust Dev., Inc., ¶ 13, 6 Husband’s citation to A.R.S.
  • RS Industries, Inc. v. Candrian 377 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • RS Industries, Inc. v. Candrian 377 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Smitty's Super- Valu, -81 (1974); ("[A]n arbitration award is not subject to attack merely because one party believes that the arbitrators erred with 1 Absent material revision after the relevant date, we cite a statute's current version.
  • Tessler v. Progressive Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Tessler v. Progressive Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    §§ 12-1501 through -1518.6 (“[T]he grounds for attack of an arbitration award are codified in A.R.S.
  • Schmidt v. Schmidt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Schmidt v. Schmidt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Ct. App. 1998) (holding that the failure to include pre- judgment interest in an award was not a mathematical error) ¶36 Assuming, without deciding, that the award is erroneous, it is not subject to attack “merely because one party believes that the arbitrator[] erred with respect to factual determinations or legal interpretations.” Smitty’s, 22 Ariz. App. at 182, 525 P.2d at 313 (finding that the trial court erred in modifying an arbitrator’s award based upon an alleged error of law); see also
  • Nolan v. Kenner 250 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Nolan v. Kenner 250 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Swain Chapman v. the Westerner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • Swain Chapman v. the Westerner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    ¶7 P.2d 624 (App. 1978), to support its conclusion that “parties who agree to have value affixed by an appraisal are not entitled to a second appraisal absent fraud or bad faith.” But we do not read Hirt as setting forth any such rule.
  • Morgan v. Carillon Investments, Inc. 88 P.3d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Morgan v. Carillon Investments, Inc. 88 P.3d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    Co., , (stating that the “the power of the court to set aside an award is confined to the grounds set forth” in § 12-1512); , (“Arizona has substantially adopted the Uniform Arbitration Act, and the grounds for attack of an arbitration award are codified in A.R.S.
  • Brake Masters Systems, Inc. v. Gabbay 78 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • Brake Masters Systems, Inc. v. Gabbay 78 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    (arbitration award not subject to attack merely because one party believes arbitrators erred in factual determinations or legal interpretations).
  • Meineke v. Twin City Fire Insurance 892 P.2d 1365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Meineke v. Twin City Fire Insurance 892 P.2d 1365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    409 , 445 A.2d 14, 20 (1982); , (both appraisals and arbitrations provide contractual methods for settling disputes in a less complicated and expensive manner than through court adjudication).
  • Hanson v. Commercial Union Insurance 723 P.2d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Hanson v. Commercial Union Insurance 723 P.2d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Pawlicki v. Farmers Insurance 618 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • Pawlicki v. Farmers Insurance 618 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
    12-1502 and the adverse party did not participate in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection; but the fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award.” , the power of the court to set aside an award is confined to the grounds set forth in the statute: “.