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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-243 (2026)

Computation of time

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

A. Except as provided in subsection B, the time in which an act is required to be done shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last day, unless the last day is a holiday, and then it is also excluded.

B. In cases in which notice of a decision by the state, any agency thereof or any political subdivision must be given to a petitioner and in which the petitioner must file a notice of appeal of such decision within a time certain of less than ten days, such time shall be computed starting with the day after the day during which the notice of decision is received by the petitioner by personal service or registered or certified mail.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1961–2009 · leading case: MacIborski v. Chase Serv. Corp., 779 P.2d 1296 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
MacIborski v. Chase Serv. Corp., 779 P.2d 1296 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 8× “A.R.S. § 1-243 provides in relevant part that “[t]he time in which an act is required to be done shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last day____” We also note that the same method of computing time is set forth in Rule 6(a), Arizona Rules of Civil…”
Salzman v. Morentin, 567 P.2d 1208 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 6× “within two years after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward Appellee’s argument rests upon two Arizona statutes, A.R.S. § 1-243 and § 1-301(A). The former states that the time in which an act is required to be done is computed by excluding the first day and including…”
State v. Cabrera, 44 P.3d 174 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “Thus, counting from October 13, 2000, the day on which Cabrera was served with the order of suspension, and excluding that day from the computation as required by A.R.S. § 1-243, the deadline for Cabrera to schedule his hearing was Saturday, October 28, which, by statute, is a…”
Dutton v. McKinley Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 822 P.2d 1134 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “After noting the majority of both federal and state decisions had interpreted Rule 6 to calculate the period of limitation to include the first business day after a weekend or holiday, the Arizona court confronted the inconsistency between its statute and the rule of procedure,…”
Fisher v. City of Apache Junction, 28 P.3d 946 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 5× “¶ 8 Although the City refers to § 1-243, it does not mention §§ 1-303 or 1-301(A)(1).”
State v. Tillmon, 216 P.3d 1198 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “The “general rule” at issue in Maciborski is A.R.S. § 1-243 (2002) (explaining time is "computed by excluding the first day and including *456 the last day”), and Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) (providing that “the day of the act, event or default from which the designated…”
Tiffany Inc. v. WMK Transit Mix, Inc., 493 P.2d 1220 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 1-243, which is in Article 3, Effect of Statutes, states: “The time in which an act is required to be done shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last day, unless the last day is a holiday, and then it is also excluded.”
McDonald v. Thomas, 12 P.3d 1194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 8× “See A.R.S. § 1-243(A) (1995). It was therefore timely.”
State v. Lychwick, 218 P.3d 1061 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 1-243 (Supp.2008), for example, states: “[T]he time in which an act is required to be done shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last day____” Similarly, Rule 1.”
Neil B. McGinnis Equip. Co. v. Henson, 406 P.2d 409 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965). · cites it 3× “to publication was amended by adding the word “one” so that the crucial portion of the above quoted language of § 44-319 insofar as it relates to publication, now reads: “ * * * at least five days before the sale by one publication in a newspaper ífí ijí * » *61 As with most…”
Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court, 446 P.2d 231 (Ariz. 1968). · cites it 2× “Normally, when the last day to do an act falls on a Sunday, A.R.S. §§ 1-243 and 1-303 provide that it may be performed on the next ensuing business day.”
State v. Soloman, 571 P.2d 1024 (Ariz. 1977). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 1-243. See also Rule 6(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-243(A) — 3 cases
McDonald v. Thomas, 12 P.3d 1194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “See A.R.S. § 1-243(A) (1995). It was therefore timely.”
MacIborski v. Chase Serv. Corp., 779 P.2d 1296 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). “A.R.S. § 1-243 provides in relevant part that “[t]he time in which an act is required to be done shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last day____” We also note that the same method of computing time is set forth in Rule 6(a), Arizona Rules of Civil…”
Fisher v. City of Apache Junction, 28 P.3d 946 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “¶ 8 Although the City refers to § 1-243, it does not mention §§ 1-303 or 1-301(A)(1).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-243(A)(1995) — 1 case
State v. Cabrera, 44 P.3d 174 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “Thus, counting from October 13, 2000, the day on which Cabrera was served with the order of suspension, and excluding that day from the computation as required by A.R.S. § 1-243, the deadline for Cabrera to schedule his hearing was Saturday, October 28, which, by statute, is a…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-243(B) — 1 case
Fisher v. City of Apache Junction, 28 P.3d 946 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “¶ 8 Although the City refers to § 1-243, it does not mention §§ 1-303 or 1-301(A)(1).”
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.