Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite U.S. Insulation, Inc. v. Hilro Construction Co., 705 P.2d 490.

76 citing documents.

Kaatz v. Rainguard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Kaatz v. Rainguard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Faas v. Sunland Health Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Faas v. Sunland Health Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See U.S. Insulation Inc. v. Hilro Const. Co., Inc., (stating that “the arbitration clause constitutes the consent of the parties to the establishment of extra- legal machinery for the settlement of their disputes”).
Aow v. Scythian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Aow v. Scythian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
& Mgmt., Inc., -29 (App. 1990) (noting a contract may be "voidable for fraud, duress, lack of capacity, mistake, or violation of public purpose" (quoting U.S. Insulation, )); see also Jennings, 105 Ariz. at 172-73 (approving rescission as remedy for defrauded party to a contract); Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 54 ("A person who has transferred money or other property is entitled to recover it by rescission and restitution if the transaction
Brazee-Revocable Trust v. Phz-Msc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Brazee-Revocable Trust v. Phz-Msc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Duncan v. Public Storage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Duncan v. Public Storage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Singh Roofing v. Shadowood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Singh Roofing v. Shadowood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Co., Inc., (arbitration agreement applied to all disputes arising 4 SINGH ROOFING v. SHADOWOOD, et al. Decision of the Court out of the contract, not just those arising out of the performance of the contract).
Whiles v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Whiles v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Co., (citing Gary Outdoor Advert.
Roe v. Austin 433 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Roe v. Austin 433 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Co. , , 259, , 499 (App. 1985).
Allstate v. Watts 418 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Allstate v. Watts 418 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Shield v. Lionheart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Shield v. Lionheart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Co., (“The denial of a motion to compel arbitration is substantively appealable.”).
J Hamblen Et Ux v. Hon. hatch/winslow Memorial 398 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2017
J Hamblen Et Ux v. Hon. hatch/winslow Memorial 398 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2017
Hernandez v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Hernandez v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Brubacher v. Propaganda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Brubacher v. Propaganda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶16 A contract is to be interpreted in a way that will “harmonize all of its parts, and apparently conflicting parts must be reconciled, if possible, by any reasonable interpretation.” U.S. Insulation, Inc. v. Hilro Const. Co., Inc.
Cach v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cach v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Black Creek v. alanco/tsi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Black Creek v. alanco/tsi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
U.S. Insulation, Inc. v. Hilro Const. Co., Inc. (“[P]arties are bound to arbitrate only the issues which by the clear language of the agreement are subject to arbitration.”).
Valer C. Austin v. Josiah T. Austin 348 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Valer C. Austin v. Josiah T. Austin 348 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Generally, “[l]egal or equitable grounds for revoking any contract include allegations that ‘the contract is void for lack of mutual consent, consideration or capacity or voidable for fraud, duress, lack of capacity, mistake or violation of a public purpose.’” Stevens/Leinweber/Sullens, 165 Ariz. at 28-29, 795 P.2d at 1311-12
Carey v. K&M Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Carey v. K&M Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See U.S. Insulation, n. 3, n. 3 (App. 1985).
Schmidt v. Schmidt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Schmidt v. Schmidt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co., -59, - 99 (App. 1985) (declining to construe a clause requiring arbitration of “any controversy” as applicable only to a partial breach of contract).
Wb, the Building Company, LLC. v. El Destino 257 P.3d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Wb, the Building Company, LLC. v. El Destino 257 P.3d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
See, e.g., U.S. Insulation, Inc. v. Hilro Const. Co., Inc., , (stating that section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act is “very similar in purpose to A.R.S.
Desert Mountain Properties Ltd. Partnership v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance 236 P.3d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Desert Mountain Properties Ltd. Partnership v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance 236 P.3d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
AZTAR CORP. v. US Fire Ins. Co. 224 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
AZTAR CORP. v. US Fire Ins. Co. 224 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Mathews v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. 177 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Mathews v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. 177 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Co., Inc., , (“The denial of a motion to compel arbitration is substantively appealable.”).
Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Foy v. Thorp 920 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Foy v. Thorp 920 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Co., , New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. Lake Patagonia Recreation Ass’n, 12 Ariz.App.
Transportation Insurance v. Martinez 899 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Transportation Insurance v. Martinez 899 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
section 12-341.01; U.S. Insulation