Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1501 (2026)

Validity of arbitration agreement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A written agreement to submit any existing controversy to arbitration or a provision in a written contract to submit to arbitration any controversy thereafter arising between the parties is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 84 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: Broemmer v. Abortion Servs. of Phoenix, Ltd., 840 P.2d 1013 (Ariz. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Broemmer v. Abortion Servs. of Phoenix, Ltd., 840 P.2d 1013 (Ariz. 1992). · cites it 28× “Arbitration proceedings are statutorily authorized in Arizona, A.R.S. §§ 12-1501 to -1518, and arbitration plays an important role in dispute resolution, as do other salutary methods of alternative dispute resolution.”
Stevens/Leinweber/Sullens, Inc. v. Holm Dev. & Mgmt., Inc., 795 P.2d 1308 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 22× “On appeal, we consider the question whether, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1501, the validity of an arbitration provision is to be separately determined when there is no challenge to the underlying contract.”
J Hamblen Et Ux v. Hon. hatch/winslow Mem'l, 398 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2017). · cites it 9× “Relying on Prima Paint and applicable statutes in Arizona’s Uniform Arbitration Act, A.R.S. §§ 12-1501, -1602, the court of appeals embraced the doctrine over thirty years ago, ruling that “the arbitration clause is considered to be an agreement independent and separate from the…”
U.S. Insulation, Inc. v. Hilro Constr. Co., 705 P.2d 490 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 10× “A.R.S. § 12-1501 sets forth the grounds upon which the existence of an arbitration clause may be challenged: A provision in a written contract to submit to arbitration any controversy thereafter arising between the parties is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such…”
Harrington v. Pulte Home Corp., 119 P.3d 1044 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “¶45 Appellees represented to the superior court that costs to proceed as the arbitration clause required, under the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the AAA, would require an initial filing fee of $6,000 for claims between $500,000 and $1,000,000, plus a case service…”
Mathews v. Life Care Centers of Am., Inc., 177 P.3d 867 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “The record before us does not demonstrate that Mathews argued that the Agreement was unconscionable, invalid, unenforceable, and a contract of adhesion in pleadings or at oral argument before the trial court.”
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC, 380 P.3d 659 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “A judgment or decree entered pursuant to chapter 9 [Special Actions and Proceedings to Enforce Claims or Judgments, A.R.S. §§ 12-1501 to -1708] or 21 [Revised *431 Uniform Arbitration Act, A.”
North Valley Emergency, Specialists, L.L.C. v. Santana, 93 P.3d 501 (Ariz. 2004). · cites it 3× “”) §§ 12-1501 to -1518 (2003), provides that the act has “no application to arbitration agreements between employers and employees or their respective representatives.”
Brake Masters Sys., Inc. v. Gabbay, 78 P.3d 1081 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “On application of a party showing an agreement described in § 12-1501, and the opposing party’s refusal to arbitrate, the court shall order the parties to proceed with arbitration, but if the opposing party denies the existence of the agreement to arbitrate, the court shall…”
City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc., 877 P.2d 284 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “The list of legal or equitable grounds includes allegations that the contract is void for lack of mutual consent, consideration, or capacity, or voidable for fraud, duress, lack of capacity, mistake, or violation of a public purpose.”
Coup v. Scottsdale Plaza Resort, LLC, 823 F. Supp. 2d 931 (D. Ariz. 2011). · cites it 3× “Considering that both federal and “Arizona law favor[ ] arbitration, both statutorily, see A.R.S. § 12-1501, and by the courts as a matter of public policy[,]” Foy v.”
Meineke v. Twin City Fire Ins., 892 P.2d 1365 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “section 12-1501; thus, waiver of an appraisal clause, like waiver of an arbitration agreement, is generally not favored, and the facts of each case must be considered in light of the strong policy approving of arbitration.”
Show all 84 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.