Unless otherwise provided by the agreement:
1. The arbitrators shall appoint a time and place for the hearing and cause notification to the parties to be served personally or by registered mail not less than five days before the hearing. Appearance at the hearing waives such notice. The arbitrators may adjourn the hearing from time to time as necessary and, on request of a party and for good cause, or upon their own motion, may postpone the hearing to a time not later than the date fixed by the agreement for making the award unless the parties consent to a later date. The arbitrators may hear and determine the controversy upon the evidence produced notwithstanding the failure of a party duly notified to appear. The court on application may direct the arbitrators to proceed promptly with the hearing and determination of the controversy.
2. The parties are entitled to be heard, to present evidence material to the controversy and to cross-examine witnesses appearing at the hearing.
3. The hearing shall be conducted by all the arbitrators but a majority may determine any question and render a final award. If, during the course of the hearing, an arbitrator for any reason ceases to act, the remaining arbitrator or arbitrators appointed to act as neutrals may continue with the hearing and determination of the controversy.
Notes of Decisions
Atreus Communities Grp. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., 277 P.3d 208 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 15× “It argued the arbitrator exceeded his powers and failed to conduct the hearing as provided in A.R.S. § 12-1505 (2003). 1 See AR.S. § 12-1512(A)(3) and (4) (2003).”
The Est. of Josefa U. Decamacho v. La Solana Care & Rehab, Inc., 316 P.3d 607 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “§ 12-1503, who “shall appoint a time and place for the hearing,” A.R.S. § 12-1505(1), at which “[t]he parties are entitled to be heard, to present evidence material to the controversy and to cross-examine witnesses appearing at the hearing,” A.”
FIA Card Servs., N.A. v. Levy, 200 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Although Levy suggests his right to an arbitration hearing under A.R.S. § 12-1505 was violated and for that reason alone the trial court should not have confirmed the arbitration award, he has failed to develop this argument, and it is therefore abandoned.”
Yeung v. MARIC, 232 P.3d 1281 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 12-1505 to 12-1507 (2003). We believe these safeguards make arbitration sufficiently analogous to judicial litigation to warrant application of the privilege.”
Morgan v. Carillon Investments, Inc., 88 P.3d 1159 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of § 12-1505, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party;…”
Fisher Ex Rel. Fisher v. Nat'l Gen. Ins., 965 P.2d 100 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of § 12-1505, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party;…”
Park Imperial, Inc. v. E. L. Farmer Constr. Co., 454 P.2d 181 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969).
“The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of § 12-1505, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party;…”
Saf. Control, Inc. v. Verwin, Inc., 494 P.2d 740 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972).
“" The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown'therefor or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of § 12-1505,- as to prejudice substantially the rights of a…”
Fia Card Servs. v. Douglas B. Levy (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “1 Although Levy suggests his right to an arbitration hearing under A.R.S. § 12-1505 was violated and for that reason alone the trial court should not have confirmed the arbitration award, he has failed to develop this argument, and it is therefore abandoned.”
Le v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (D. Ariz. 2022).
“The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being 24 shown therefor or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of § 12-1505, as 25 to prejudice substantially the rights of a…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1505(1) — 1 case
The Est. of Josefa U. Decamacho v. La Solana Care & Rehab, Inc., 316 P.3d 607 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“§ 12-1503, who “shall appoint a time and place for the hearing,” A.R.S. § 12-1505(1), at which “[t]he parties are entitled to be heard, to present evidence material to the controversy and to cross-examine witnesses appearing at the hearing,” A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1505(2) — 2 cases
Atreus Communities Grp. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., 277 P.3d 208 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“It argued the arbitrator exceeded his powers and failed to conduct the hearing as provided in A.R.S. § 12-1505 (2003). 1 See AR.S. § 12-1512(A)(3) and (4) (2003).”
The Est. of Josefa U. Decamacho v. La Solana Care & Rehab, Inc., 316 P.3d 607 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“§ 12-1503, who “shall appoint a time and place for the hearing,” A.R.S. § 12-1505(1), at which “[t]he parties are entitled to be heard, to present evidence material to the controversy and to cross-examine witnesses appearing at the hearing,” A.”
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.