12-3023. Vacating award
A. On motion to the court by a party to an arbitration proceeding, the court shall vacate an award made in the arbitration proceeding if any of the following applies:
1. The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means.
2. There was either:
(a) Evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral arbitrator.
(b) Corruption by an arbitrator.
(c) Misconduct by an arbitrator prejudicing the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding.
3. An arbitrator refused to postpone the hearing on showing of sufficient cause for postponement, refused to consider evidence material to the controversy or otherwise conducted the hearing contrary to section 12-3015, so as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding.
4. An arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator's powers.
5. There was no agreement to arbitrate, unless the person participated in the arbitration proceeding without raising the objection under section 12-3015, subsection C not later than the beginning of the arbitration hearing.
6. The arbitration was conducted without proper notice of the initiation of an arbitration as required in section 12-3009 so as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding.
B. A motion under this section must be filed within ninety days after the movant receives notice of the award pursuant to section 12-3019 or within ninety days after the movant receives notice of a modified or corrected award pursuant to section 12-3020, unless the movant alleges that the award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means, in which case the motion must be made within ninety days after the ground is known or by the exercise of reasonable care would have been known by the movant.
C. If the court vacates an award on a ground other than that set forth in subsection A, paragraph 5 of this section, it may order a rehearing. If the award is vacated on a ground stated in subsection A, paragraph 1 or 2 of this section, the rehearing must be before a new arbitrator. If the award is vacated on a ground stated in subsection A, paragraph 3, 4 or 6 of this section, the rehearing may be before the arbitrator who made the award or the arbitrator's successor. The arbitrator must render the decision in the rehearing within the same time as that provided in section 12-3019, subsection B for an award.
D. If the court denies a motion to vacate an award, it shall confirm the award unless a motion to modify or correct the award is pending.
Notes of Decisions
RS Indus., Inc. v. Candrian, 377 P.3d 329 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 8× “¶ 20 The Candrians were successful in confirming the arbitration award over RS’s vigorous attempt to vacate it under A.R.S. § 12-3023, and thus were entitled to them reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to A.”
Helen Yu-Wen Chang v. Siu, 323 P.3d 725 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 7× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-3023, a party aggrieved by the award may move the court to vacate it.”
Russell Piccoli P.L.C. v. O'Donnell, 344 P.3d 345 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-3023(A)(1), (4) (Supp. 2014) provides that, among other reasons, an arbitration award shall be vacated if “[t]he award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means,” or if “[a]n arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s powers.”
Chayce v. Path Constr. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 22× ““The superior court may reject an arbitration award only on [the] narrow statutorily enumerated grounds” of A.R.S. § 12-3023, Russell Piccoli P.L.C. v.”
Fisher v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 427 P.3d 791 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“a known, existing and substantial relationship with a party is presumed to act with evident partiality under § 12-3023, subsection A, paragraph 2." ¶11 Upon timely objection by a party, the superior court may vacate an arbitration award if an arbitrator did not disclose a…”
Black Mesa v. Anand (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 12× “This is a tall order, because A.R.S. § 12-3023 sets a high bar to overturn such an award.”
Mills & Woods v. Weiss (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 11× “§ 12-3012] and a party timely objects to the appointment or continued service of the arbitrator based on the fact disclosed, the objection may be a ground under § 12-3023, subsection A, paragraph 2 for vacating an award made by the arbitrator.”
Williams Law Grp. PLLC v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n (D. Ariz. 2022).
· cites it 7× “) The case on which Plaintiffs rely for this proposition, however, is not on point. 27 2 As it pertains to the specific grounds for vacatur that Plaintiffs raise, the Court is unaware of any authority suggesting that the analysis under Ariz.”
Singh Roofing v. Shadowood (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 6× “See A.R.S. § 12-3023(A). Neither the prescribed circumstances under the AZ- RUAA nor Arizona case law explicitly permits manifest disregard of the law as a basis for setting aside an arbitration award.”
Shastri v. Patel (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 6× “And, under these circumstances, Section 12-3023 requires a court to vacate an arbitration award if proper notice was not given.”
Phoenix-Tucson v. Deetz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “The Superior Court Did Not Err in Confirming the Arbitrator’s Awards ¶19 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-3023(A)(4) (2016), an arbitrator’s award may be vacated where the arbitrator exceeded his powers.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3023(A) — 5 cases
RS Indus., Inc. v. Candrian, 377 P.3d 329 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“¶ 20 The Candrians were successful in confirming the arbitration award over RS’s vigorous attempt to vacate it under A.R.S. § 12-3023, and thus were entitled to them reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to A.”
Helen Yu-Wen Chang v. Siu, 323 P.3d 725 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-3023, a party aggrieved by the award may move the court to vacate it.”
Singh Roofing v. Shadowood (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“See A.R.S. § 12-3023(A). Neither the prescribed circumstances under the AZ- RUAA nor Arizona case law explicitly permits manifest disregard of the law as a basis for setting aside an arbitration award.”
Shastri v. Patel (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“And, under these circumstances, Section 12-3023 requires a court to vacate an arbitration award if proper notice was not given.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3023(A)(1) — 3 cases
Russell Piccoli P.L.C. v. O'Donnell, 344 P.3d 345 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-3023(A)(1), (4) (Supp. 2014) provides that, among other reasons, an arbitration award shall be vacated if “[t]he award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means,” or if “[a]n arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s powers.”
Chayce v. Path Constr. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
““The superior court may reject an arbitration award only on [the] narrow statutorily enumerated grounds” of A.R.S. § 12-3023, Russell Piccoli P.L.C. v.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3023(A)(2) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3023(A)(2)(a) — 3 cases
Singh Roofing v. Shadowood (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“See A.R.S. § 12-3023(A). Neither the prescribed circumstances under the AZ- RUAA nor Arizona case law explicitly permits manifest disregard of the law as a basis for setting aside an arbitration award.”
Mills & Woods v. Weiss (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
“§ 12-3012] and a party timely objects to the appointment or continued service of the arbitrator based on the fact disclosed, the objection may be a ground under § 12-3023, subsection A, paragraph 2 for vacating an award made by the arbitrator.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3023(A)(2)(c) — 1 case
Williams Law Grp. PLLC v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n (D. Ariz. 2022).
“) The case on which Plaintiffs rely for this proposition, however, is not on point. 27 2 As it pertains to the specific grounds for vacatur that Plaintiffs raise, the Court is unaware of any authority suggesting that the analysis under Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3023(A)(3) — 4 cases
Chayce v. Path Constr. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
““The superior court may reject an arbitration award only on [the] narrow statutorily enumerated grounds” of A.R.S. § 12-3023, Russell Piccoli P.L.C. v.”
Black Mesa v. Anand (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
“This is a tall order, because A.R.S. § 12-3023 sets a high bar to overturn such an award.”
Mills & Woods v. Weiss (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
“§ 12-3012] and a party timely objects to the appointment or continued service of the arbitrator based on the fact disclosed, the objection may be a ground under § 12-3023, subsection A, paragraph 2 for vacating an award made by the arbitrator.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3023(A)(4) — 8 cases
RS Indus., Inc. v. Candrian, 377 P.3d 329 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“¶ 20 The Candrians were successful in confirming the arbitration award over RS’s vigorous attempt to vacate it under A.R.S. § 12-3023, and thus were entitled to them reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to A.”
Mills & Woods v. Weiss (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
“§ 12-3012] and a party timely objects to the appointment or continued service of the arbitrator based on the fact disclosed, the objection may be a ground under § 12-3023, subsection A, paragraph 2 for vacating an award made by the arbitrator.”
Phoenix-Tucson v. Deetz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“The Superior Court Did Not Err in Confirming the Arbitrator’s Awards ¶19 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-3023(A)(4) (2016), an arbitrator’s award may be vacated where the arbitrator exceeded his powers.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3023(A)(5) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3023(A)(6) — 2 cases
Shastri v. Patel (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“And, under these circumstances, Section 12-3023 requires a court to vacate an arbitration award if proper notice was not given.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3023(B) — 3 cases
Phoenix-Tucson v. Deetz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“The Superior Court Did Not Err in Confirming the Arbitrator’s Awards ¶19 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-3023(A)(4) (2016), an arbitrator’s award may be vacated where the arbitrator exceeded his powers.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3023(D) — 1 case
Chayce v. Path Constr. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
““The superior court may reject an arbitration award only on [the] narrow statutorily enumerated grounds” of A.R.S. § 12-3023, Russell Piccoli P.L.C. v.”
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.