context: The court of appeals held that the confirmation statute "does not detract from the court's authority under AR.S. section 12-341.01(A) to award attorney's fees."
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 868 P.2d 1026, 1026
citation_a.parenthetical: finding that a proceeding to confirm, modify, or vacate an arbitration award is not a "civil action" within the meaning of an attorney's fee statute
citation_a.sentence: Canon III, 177 Ariz. at 443, 868 P.2d at 1026. Assuming, as the court of appeals held, that arbitrations under the Act are contested contract actions for purposes of AR.S. § 12-341.01(A), but see City of Waterbury v. Waterbury Police Union, 176 Conn. 401, 408, 407 A.2d 1013, 1016 (1979) (finding that a proceeding to confirm, modify, or vacate an arbitration award is not a “civil action” within the meaning of an attorney’s fee statute), we find it unnecessary to consider attorney’s fees based on AR.S. § 12-341.01 because we find that fees for the confirmation can be awarded under the Uniform Act itself.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 134 Ariz. 133, 134
citation_b.parenthetical: "[Wjhere two statutes deal with the same subject, the more specific statute controls."
citation_b.sentence: See Pima County v. Heinfeld, 134 Ariz. 133, 134, 654 P.2d 281, 282 (1982) (“[Wjhere two statutes deal with the same subject, the more specific statute controls.”).