Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Clarke v. Asarco Inc., 601 P.2d 587.

36 citing documents.

Chayce v. Path Construction Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Chayce v. Path Construction Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Caliente v. Wildflower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Caliente v. Wildflower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
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
¶ 11 (1999) ( and Pima Cty.
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
¶23 Substantively, LCMC argues that the parties’ dispute “is merely with respect to the scope of the effect of the [arbitration] award, which the parties agree is final and enforceable.” Relying on Clarke v. ASARCO, Inc., LCMC contends that “[t]he arbitrator’s subject-matter jurisdiction is .
Carey v. K&M Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Carey v. K&M Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Schmidt v. Schmidt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Schmidt v. Schmidt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See generally Clarke v. ASARCO, Inc., (holding that the arbitrator’s authority was limited by the parties’ agreement to arbitrate items “covered” in only one paragraph).
Smith v. Pinnamaneni 254 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Smith v. Pinnamaneni 254 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Cortez v. Avalon Care Center Tucson, L.L.C. 245 P.3d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Cortez v. Avalon Care Center Tucson, L.L.C. 245 P.3d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Saguaro Highlands Community Ass'n v. Biltis 229 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Saguaro Highlands Community Ass'n v. Biltis 229 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Notwithstanding this public policy, “an arbitrator cannot resolve issues which go beyond the scope of the submission agreement” and “[pjarties are only bound to arbitrate those issues which by clear language they have agreed to arbitrate.” , So.
Short v. Petty 139 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Short v. Petty 139 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
¶ 23 As we have held, “the policy of this State is to avoid, rather than promote, litigation.” ¶ 29 , , (stating that Arizona law favors arbitration as a matter of public policy); , (same); A.R.S.
Valder Law Offices v. Keenan Law Firm 129 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Valder Law Offices v. Keenan Law Firm 129 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Southern California Edison Co. v. Peabody Western Coal Co. 977 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1999
Southern California Edison Co. v. Peabody Western Coal Co. 977 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1999
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
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
Dusold v. Porta-John Corp. 807 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Dusold v. Porta-John Corp. 807 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Clarke v. Asarco, Inc., , (parties may be required to arbitrate only that “which by clear language they have agreed to arbitrate”).
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
Accord Clarke v. Asarco, Inc., , , Smitty’s Super-Valu, Inc. v. Pasqualetti, 22 Ariz.App.
U.S. Insulation, Inc. v. Hilro Construction Co. 705 P.2d 490 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
U.S. Insulation, Inc. v. Hilro Construction Co. 705 P.2d 490 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Payne v. Pennzoil Corp. 672 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Payne v. Pennzoil Corp. 672 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
) that an agreement to submit all disputes that may arise to arbitration cannot oust the court of jurisdiction absolutely, , , (2) that the parties are bound to arbitrate only those issues which by clear language they have agreed to arbitrate, citing Clarke v. Asarco, Inc., , , vac’d on other grounds, , ; and (3) that arbitration may not resolve issues that go beyond the scope of the submission agreement, citing Clark v. Asarco, Inc., supra; Goldsberry v.