Cited by

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

76 citing documents.

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
Co., , (denial of motion to compel arbitration is substantively appealable).
Canon Sch. Dist. v. WES CONSTR. CO. IV 882 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1994
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 882 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1994
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 882 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1994
Co., , does not provide any further insight.
Canon Sch. Dist. v. WES CONSTR. CO. IV 882 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1994
Co., , does not provide any further insight.
City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc. 877 P.2d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc. 877 P.2d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gonzalez v. Satrustegui 870 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gonzalez v. Satrustegui 870 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Heinig v. Hudman 865 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Heinig v. Hudman 865 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Cf U.S. Insulation, , (to successfully challenge a motion to compel arbitration requires evidence either that (1) with regard to the arbitration provision itself, grounds exist “in law or in equity for the revocation of any contract” or (2) the arbitration clause was repudiated, resulting in waiver).
Broemmer v. Otto 821 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Broemmer v. Otto 821 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
BancAmerica Commercial Corp. v. Brown 806 P.2d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
BancAmerica Commercial Corp. v. Brown 806 P.2d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Additionally, the trial court may compel arbitration and stay court proceedings pending the arbitration, see U.S. Insulation, , and the parties apparently agree that the trial court retains jurisdiction to do so.
Stevens/Leinweber/Sullens, Inc. v. Holm Development & Management, Inc. 795 P.2d 1308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Stevens/Leinweber/Sullens, Inc. v. Holm Development & Management, Inc. 795 P.2d 1308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Based on this court’s holding in U.S. Insulation, Inc. v. Hilro Construction Company, Inc., , the trial court found, as a matter of law, the arbitration provision in the general construction contract was unenforceable because it lacked mutuality.
Smith v. Logan 799 P.2d 1378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Smith v. Logan 799 P.2d 1378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
§ 12-1501 and “alleged with respect to the formation of the arbitration agreement itself, not the underlying contract.” U.S. Insulation, Inc. v. Hilro Const. Co., Inc.
Arizona Bd. of Regents for and on Behalf of University of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. State, Public … 771 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Arizona Bd. of Regents for and on Behalf of University of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. State, Public … 771 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
U.S. Insulation, Inc. v. Hilro Const. Co., Inc., , Rancho Pescado, Inc. v. Northwestern Mut.
Rocz v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. 743 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Rocz v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. 743 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Glaze v. Marcus 729 P.2d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Glaze v. Marcus 729 P.2d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986