Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 1
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-101 (2026)

Designation and citation

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The Arizona Revised Statutes adopted and enacted into law by this act, and as hereafter amended and supplemented and printed and published pursuant to section 1-106, shall be known as Arizona Revised Statutes and may be cited as "A.R.S." followed by the number of the title and the number of the section in the title, separated by a dash. Example: This section may be cited: "A.R.S. section 1-101".

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1945–2020 · leading case: Local 266, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Salt River Proj. Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 275 P.2d 393 (Ariz. 1954).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Local 266, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Salt River Proj. Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 275 P.2d 393 (Ariz. 1954). “Also Section 1-101, A.C.A.1939, declares : “Statutes shall be liberally construed, to effect their objects and to promote justice.”
Mendelsohn v. Superior Court, 261 P.2d 983 (Ariz. 1953). “Statutory Construction The cardinal principle of statutory interpretation is that the intent of the legislature is to be ascertained and followed.”
Gen. Petroleum Corp. of Cal. v. Smith, 157 P.2d 356 (Ariz. 1945). “This law, like every other law of Arizona-, must be considered and measured by the rule of statutory construction provided by the legislature and appearing in Section 1-101, Arizona Code Annotated 1939: ‘ ‘ Statutes shall be liberally construed, to effect their objects and to…”
Adams v. Bolin, 271 P.2d 472 (Ariz. 1954). “Such a requirement is unrelated to the functions of the nominating petition, yet if we adopt respondent’s interpretation of the statute in question, this requirement must be met, and compliance with it would be so burdensome that the average candidate would have difficulty in…”
Rodriquez v. Terry, 290 P.2d 248 (Ariz. 1955). “See, section 1-101, A.C.A. 1939. This statute is concise, plain and unambiguous.”
State v. Jackson, No. 1 CA-CR 19-0244-PRPC (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2020). · cites it 2× “…the Arizona Revised Statutes as designated. ¶8 We therefore grant review but deny relief. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 3”
Vales v. Kings Hill Condo. Ass'n, 125 P.3d 381 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “§§ 1-101 to 5-110, 7 U.L.A. 101 (1978), replacing Chapter 4.”
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.