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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1511 (2026)

Confirmation of an award

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

A party seeking confirmation of an award shall file and serve an application therefor in the same manner in which complaints are filed and served in civil actions. Upon the expiration of twenty days from service of the application, which shall be made upon the party against whom the award has been made, the court shall enter judgment upon the award unless opposition is made in accordance with section 12-1512.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: Morgan v. Carillon Investments, Inc., 88 P.3d 1159 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Morgan v. Carillon Investments, Inc., 88 P.3d 1159 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “A.R.S. §§ 12-1511 and 12-1512 delineate the procedure for judicial confirmation of an arbitration award.”
City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc., 877 P.2d 284 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 7× “” A.R.S. § 12-1511 (1982). 13 Cottonwood contends that the confirmation was a *194 new proceeding and that the prior proceeding regarding the motion for stay of arbitration concluded with the court’s order of April 30,1991, which sent the matter to arbitration and denied Fann’s…”
EFC Dev. Corp. v. F. F. Baugh Plumbing & Heating Inc., 540 P.2d 185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 10× “A.R.S. § 12-1511 provides as follows: “A party seeking confirmation of an award shall file and serve an application therefor in the same manner in which complaints are filed and served in civil actions.”
Atreus Communities Grp. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., 277 P.3d 208 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “AR.S. § 12-1511. The party opposing the confirmation must file a pleading and make an adequate showing in opposition based upon one of the grounds specified in A.”
Fisher Ex Rel. Fisher v. Nat'l Gen. Ins., 965 P.2d 100 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 12-1511. The trial court declined to confirm the award, concluding that NGIC failed to timely apply for confirmation.”
S. California Edison Co. v. Peabody W. Coal Co., 977 P.2d 769 (Ariz. 1999). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 12-1511 (“A party seeking confirmation of an award shall file and serve an application therefor in the same manner in which complaints are filed and served in civil actions____ [T]he court shall enter judgment upon the award unless opposition is made in accordance…”
Goldsberry v. Hohn, 583 P.2d 1360 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 4× “This appeal concerns an application filed pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1511 1 to conform an arbitration award of the State Bar of Arizona on a fee dispute between appellant, Fred Goldsberry, as the client, and appellee, Edward L.”
Morgan v. Carillon Investments, Inc., 109 P.3d 82 (Ariz. 2005). · cites it 2× “A prevailing party has the ability to preclude the spectre of an unlimited limitations period for filing a motion to va *188 cate an arbitration award by filing a motion to confirm the award pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1511 (2003), thereby triggering the twenty-day limitation in…”
Einhorn v. Valley Med. Specialists, P.C., 838 P.2d 1332 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “At the conclusion of the three and one-half day hearing, the arbitrator awarded Einhom $177,076 for his VMS stock (which the CPA valued at $97,851), a year-end bonus of $35,000 (which the VMS board of directors had denied) and $3,850 for his interests in VMS Equipment Leasing…”
Roeder v. Huish, 467 P.2d 902 (Ariz. 1970). · cites it 2× “Regardless of whether the party moving for judgment does so under the cause number of this action or serves “an application therefor in the same manner in which complaints are filed and served in civil actions,” A.R.S. § 12-1511, the plaintiffs have by timely objection herein…”
Johnson v. Pointe Cmty. Ass'n, Inc., 73 P.3d 616 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “Similarly, the superior court will uphold the determinations of a state administrative agency “unless after reviewing the administrative record and supplementing evidence presented at [an] evidentiary hearing the comí; concludes that the action is not supported by substantial…”
Heinig v. Hudman, 865 P.2d 110 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “”) § 12-1511 (1982). The court entered a money judgment against George Hudman for $165,000, which was not appealed and became final.”
Show all 31 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.