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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-201 (2026)

Adoption of common law; exceptions

✓ 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 common law only so far as it is consistent with and adapted to the natural and physical conditions of this state and the necessities of the people thereof, and not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States or the constitution or laws of this state, or established customs of the people of this state, is adopted and shall be the rule of decision in all courts of this state.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: Seisinger v. Siebel, 203 P.3d 483 (Ariz. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Seisinger v. Siebel, 203 P.3d 483 (Ariz. 2009). · cites it 8× “" A.R.S. § 1-201 (2002). [3] The American legal tradition relies on courts to make substantive law through the development of the common law.”
Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 730 P.2d 186 (Ariz. 1986). · cites it 4× “Const., art. I, § 10. 18 . Florida holds that its open court provision prohibits legislative abrogation of causes of action adopted from English common law by statute in 1829 (see A.”
Carrow Co. v. Lusby, 804 P.2d 747 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 4× “" A.R.S. § 1-201; Summerfield v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz.”
Fernandez v. Romo, 646 P.2d 878 (Ariz. 1982). · cites it 4× “" A.R.S. § 1-201. This statute does not mean that the common law adopted at the time of statehood never changes.”
Cronin v. Sheldon, 991 P.2d 231 (Ariz. 1999). · cites it 3× “, the legislature boldly, though erroneously, asserts that this court was without constitutional authority to render its decision in Wagenseller.”
Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Pac. Fin. Ass'n, 388 P.3d 556 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “10, § 8, codified at A.R.S. § 1-201 (2002). To change the common law by statute, the Legislature must do so expressly or by necessary implication.”
State v. Fell, 52 P.3d 218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “No conduct or omission constitutes an offense or an affirmative defense unless it is an offense or an affirmative defense under this title or under another statute or ordinance.”
Pleak v. Entrada Prop. Owners' Ass'n, 73 P.3d 602 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “” A.R.S. § 1-201; see also Berthot v. Security Pac.”
Yeazell v. Copins, 402 P.2d 541 (Ariz. 1965). · cites it 4× “But in Arizona the common law is binding only insofar as it is found applicable, A.R.S. § 1-201. By the Constitution of Arizona, Art.”
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Elec., Inc., 393 P.3d 919 (Ariz. 2017). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 1-201 (stating that the common law applies insofar “as it is consistent with .”
Orca Commc'ns v. Ann Noder/pitch Pub., 337 P.3d 545 (Ariz. 2014). · cites it 2× “2d at 676 ; see A.R.S. § 1-201 (adopting the common law as the rule of decision in Arizona courts except when repugnant to or inconsistent with Arizona’s Constitution or laws or the Federal Constitution).”
Urias v. PCS Health Sys., Inc., 118 P.3d 29 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 1-201 (2002) (adopting common law so far as it is consistent with Arizona’s constitution, laws, or established customs of the people); see also Pleak v.”
Show all 76 citing cases →
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-201(19): 1 case
Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Craig, 26 P.3d 510 (Ariz. 2001).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-201(54): 1 case
Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Pac. Fin. Ass'n, 388 P.3d 556 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “10, § 8, codified at A.R.S. § 1-201 (2002). To change the common law by statute, the Legislature must do so expressly or by necessary implication.”
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.