Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co., 882 P.2d 1274.

34 citing documents.

Red Moon v. Kreitzman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Red Moon v. Kreitzman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Chayce v. Path Construction Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Co., Inc., (holding that arbitration panel “did not abuse its discretion in denying .
Anderson v. State Farm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Co., Inc., –54 (1994) ("[W]e find it unnecessary to consider attorney's fees based on A.R.S.
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
Co., Inc., (quoting Smitty’s Super-Valu, ).
Larmer v. Estate of Larmer 382 P.3d 1230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Const. Co., -54, -80 (1994) (because purpose in enacting a uniform act is to achieve conformity, Arizona courts should consider construction given to the uniform act by other courts); 2B Norman Singer & Shambie Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 5:25 (7th ed. 2015) (cross-jurisdictional reference t
Klesla v. Wittenberg 380 P.3d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Klesla v. Wittenberg 380 P.3d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Const. Co., Inc., , 882 P.2d *441 1274, 1276 (1994).
Tessler v. Progressive Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Tessler v. Progressive Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Orca Communications v. Ann Noder Et vir/pitch Public 337 P.3d 545 Ariz. 2014
Orca Communications v. Ann Noder Et vir/pitch Public 337 P.3d 545 Ariz. 2014
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
Const. Co., Inc., , to support its contention that arbitration is not an action for which fees may be recovered under § 12-341.01.
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
Co., , (quoting Smitty’s Super-Valu, Inc. v. Pasqualetti, 22 Ariz.App.
Romer-Pollis v. Ada 222 P.3d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Romer-Pollis v. Ada 222 P.3d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Co., Inc., , (noting that the purpose of arbitration is to provide “expedited, efficient, relatively uncomplicated, alternative means of dispute resolution, with limited judicial intervention or participation, and without the primary expense of litigation-attorneys’ fees”); Rancho Pescado, Inc. v.
Fia Card Services v. Douglas B. Levy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Harrington v. Pulte Home Corp. 119 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Harrington v. Pulte Home Corp. 119 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Const. Co., Inc., , Rancho Pescado, Inc. v. N.W.
Fearnow v. Ridenour, Swenson, Cleere & Evans, P.C. 110 P.3d 357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Fearnow v. Ridenour, Swenson, Cleere & Evans, P.C. 110 P.3d 357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Const. Co. Inc., , (declaring that “[u]niform Acts should be interpreted consistently,” and quoting the Tennessee Supreme Court, which stated that “[i]t is axiomatic that a purpose in enacting uniform laws is to achieve conformity, not uniqueness____ This court should strive to maintain the standardizat
Pierce v. Molet 87 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Pierce v. Molet 87 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Construction Co., Inc., , citing Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Olsen, 692 S.W.2d 850, 853 (Tenn.1985) (finding that courts should seriously regard interpretations given to uniform laws by other state courts and strive for uniformity in construction where possible).
Brake Masters Systems, Inc. v. Gabbay 78 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Brake Masters Systems, Inc. v. Gabbay 78 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Steer Ex Rel. K & K Cable, Inc. v. Eggleston 47 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Steer Ex Rel. K & K Cable, Inc. v. Eggleston 47 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Construction Company, -52 , -78 (1994), which prohibited a trial court from awarding fees when they were not provided for in the arbitration agreement.
Valler v. Lee 949 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Valler v. Lee 949 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Canon Sch. Dist. v. WES CONSTR. CO. IV 882 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1994
Canon Sch. Dist. v. WES CONSTR. CO. IV 882 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1994
CANON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 50, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W.E.S.