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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1517 (2026)

Limited effect of article

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

This article shall have no application to arbitration agreements between employers and employees or their respective representatives.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: North Valley Emergency, Specialists, L.L.C. v. Santana, 93 P.3d 501 (Ariz. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
North Valley Emergency, Specialists, L.L.C. v. Santana, 93 P.3d 501 (Ariz. 2004). · cites it 47× “” A.R.S. § 12-1517. We granted review to determine whether Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-1517 applies to all arbitration agreements between employers and employees or only those found in collective bargaining contracts.”
Coup v. Scottsdale Plaza Resort, LLC, 823 F. Supp. 2d 931 (D. Ariz. 2011). · cites it 5× “” The Court noted, however, in footnote 3, that "[njeither party argued whether the arbitration clauses are enforceable as a common-law contract term.”
J Hamblen Et Ux v. Hon. hatch/winslow Mem'l, 398 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2017). · cites it 2× “¶ 19 The parties did not waive those non-applicability provisions by entering into an employment agreement with an arbitration clause.”
United Farm Workers Nat'l Union v. Babbitt, 449 F. Supp. 449 (D. Ariz. 1978). · cites it 2× “§ 23-1393(B), as unconstitutional in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and the Seventh Amendment providing for right to trial by jury.”
Verdex Steel & Constr. Co. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 509 P.2d 240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973). “§ 12-1501 through § 12-1517. In our opinion the pre-Arizona Supreme Court opinions on arbitration awards, and the Court review thereof, while they declare a policy in favor of arbitration, are not controlling as to the issues which may be considered by judicial review.”
N Valley Emergency v. Hon. santana/team Physicians (Ariz. 2004). · cites it 38× “1 In response, the defendants argued that the trial court did not have the statutory authority to grant TPA’s motion because A.R.S. § 12-1517 exempted employment contracts from the Act.”
Shield v. Lionheart (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “301 (2004), the Arizona Supreme Court held that A.R.S. § 12-1517 — the AZ-UAA equivalent to § 12-3003(B)(1) — exempts employment agreements from the AZ-UAA but declined to address whether the FAA preempts Arizona law.”
Myers v. Racerworld LLC (D. Ariz. 2022). · cites it 2× “4 A.R.S. § 12-1517 provides: “This article shall have no application to arbitration 26 agreements between employers and employees or their respective representatives.”
Pimsner v. Greystar Prop. Mgmt. (D. Ariz. 2024). · cites it 2× “Federal Preemption 23 Plaintiff first argues that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable under Arizona 24 statutory and case law, citing to a provision of the Arizona Revised Uniform Arbitration 25 Act (the “RUAA”), A.R.S. § 12-1517, and the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision…”
Frazer Ryan v. Mayne (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “, A.R.S. 12-1517 (excluding agreements between employers and employees from the original arbitration act).”
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.