Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite National Bank v. Schwartz, 283 P.3d 41.

26 citing documents.

Caliente v. Wildflower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Caliente v. Wildflower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Monroe v. Az Acreage 443 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Monroe v. Az Acreage 443 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See Nat’l ¶ 7 (App. 2012) (“[T]he debt and all the potential recovery flow from the promissory note.”).
Wells Fargo v. Hoskyns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Wells Fargo v. Hoskyns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“We review the denial of a motion to compel arbitration de novo.” Sun Valley Ranch 308 Ltd. P’ship v. Englewood Props., ¶ 9 (App. 2012) (citing Nat’l ¶ 4 (App. 2012)).
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
Englewood Props., ¶ 9 (App. 2012) (citing Nat’l ¶ 4 (App. 2012)).
ZB, N.A. v. Hoeller 395 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
ZB, N.A. v. Hoeller 395 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Nat’l , 312 ¶ 7, (“The debt arises from the promissory note.
Turley v. Beus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Turley v. Beus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Englewood Props., ¶ 9 (App. 2012) (citing Nat’l ¶ 4 (App. 2012)).
Phoenix-Tucson v. Deetz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Phoenix-Tucson v. Deetz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
ANALYSIS I. The Superior Court Did Not Err in Compelling Arbitration in the HVRI and PTR Actions ¶10 “The trial court’s review on a motion to compel arbitration is limited to the determination as to whether an arbitration agreement exists.” Nat’l ¶ 4, see also A.R.S.
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
§ 12-3006 for the proposition that a reviewing court is limited in its review to the determination of whether an arbitration agreement exists and whether the parties are bound by that agreement.
Bmo v. Reid Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Bmo v. Reid Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Carey v. K&M Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Carey v. K&M Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Nat’l ¶ 4, (citations omitted).
Morgan AZ Financial, L.L.C. v. Gotses 326 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Morgan AZ Financial, L.L.C. v. Gotses 326 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In support of this contention
The ESTATE OF JOSEFA U. DeCAMACHO v. LA SOLANA CARE AND REHAB, INC. 316 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
The ESTATE OF JOSEFA U. DeCAMACHO v. LA SOLANA CARE AND REHAB, INC. 316 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
are invalid and unenforceable,” and (2) “[t]he arbitration clause applies to no claims in this case and does not bind the Estate of Josefa DeCamacho, its personal representative, or any statutory beneficiary.” ¶8 “The trial court’s review on a motion to compel arbitration is limited to the determination as to whether an arbitration agreement exists.” Nat’l
Sun Valley Ranch 308 Ltd. Partnership v. Robson 294 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Sun Valley Ranch 308 Ltd. Partnership v. Robson 294 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
310, 311, ¶ 4, (citations omitted).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by