DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Atreus Communities Group v. Stardust Development, Inc., 277 P.3d 208.

40 citing documents.

  • Red Moon v. Kreitzman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Red Moon v. Kreitzman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., ¶ 13 (App. 2012) (“In cases arbitrated subject to the parties’ agreement and subject to the arbitrator not exceeding his or her powers, the arbitrator’s decisions are final and binding as to both issues of fact and law, regardless of the correctness of the decision.”) (emphasis added).
  • Gounder v. Royal Riviera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Gounder v. Royal Riviera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., ¶ 13 (App. 2012).
  • Rodriguez v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Rodriguez v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., ¶ 13 (App. 2012).
  • Chayce v. Path Construction Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Chayce v. Path Construction Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., ¶ 13 (App. 2012), and the court may not substitute its view of the evidence for the arbitrator’s, see Pawlicki v. Farmers Ins.
  • Hirschi v. Hirschi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Hirschi v. Hirschi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., ¶ 15 (App. 2012) (holding that “the trial court did not have to hold an evidentiary hearing” to determine scope of arbitrator’s authority under terms of arbitration agreement, in part because “the documents submitted to the court did not present a genuine issue of material fact as to” that issue).
  • McGill v. Ball Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • McGill v. Ball Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., 229 Ariz. 503, 506, ¶ 13 (App. 2012)).
  • Mellcell v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Mellcell v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., ¶ 13 (App. 2012).
  • Dekutoski v. Dekutoski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Dekutoski v. Dekutoski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., ¶ 13 (App. 2012).
  • Singh Roofing v. Shadowood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Singh Roofing v. Shadowood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., ¶ 13 (App. 2012).
  • Fisher v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. 427 P.3d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Fisher v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. 427 P.3d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc. , , 506, ¶ 13, , 211 (App. 2012).
  • Phoenix-Tucson v. Deetz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Phoenix-Tucson v. Deetz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., ¶ 13, and we will not review the merits of an arbitrator’s factual findings or legal conclusions.
  • 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
    See Atreus Communities Group of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., ¶ 13 (App. 2012).
  • Tessler v. Progressive Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Tessler v. Progressive Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., ¶ 13 (App. 2012) (citing Brake Masters Sys., n.3, ¶ 12 (App. 2003), and Park Imperial, 9 Ariz. App. at 513-14).
  • Frazer v. Frazzano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Frazer v. Frazzano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., ¶ 13
  • Kohner v. Pyper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Kohner v. Pyper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., ¶ 13
  • Roberts v. Del Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Roberts v. Del Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., ¶ 13
  • Schmidt v. Schmidt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Schmidt v. Schmidt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., ¶ 13
  • Helen Yu-Wen Chang v. Siu 323 P.3d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Helen Yu-Wen Chang v. Siu 323 P.3d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Group of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., ¶ 13, ("boundaries of [an] arbitrator[’s] powers are defined by the agreement of the parties") (quoting Smitty's Super-Valu, ).
  • Duckstein v. Wolf 282 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Duckstein v. Wolf 282 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., ¶ 15 , (finding court did not err in not holding an evidentiary hearing “relating to the arbitrator’s powers because neither party requested it and the documents submitted to the court did not present a genuine issue of material fact as to the arbitrator’s power to grant summary judg