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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-244 (2026)

Retroactivity of statutes

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

No statute is retroactive unless expressly declared therein.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 175 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case: Garcia v. Browning, 151 P.3d 533 (Ariz. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Garcia v. Browning, 151 P.3d 533 (Ariz. 2007). · cites it 23× “We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 5(3), of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. § 12-120.24 (2003), and Arizona Rule of Procedure for Special Actions 8(b).”
State v. Aguilar, 178 P.3d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 16× “Aguilar, however, responds that applying § 13-107(E) to him would “violat[e] Arizona ease law, A.R.S. § 1-244 and § 1-249, and the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Arizona and U[nited] S[tates] Constitutions.”
Brunet v. Murphy, 135 P.3d 714 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 12× “¶ 9 On appeal, the estate argues that application of the amended statute to bar the estate’s claim against Murphy would be a retroactive application of the statute prohibited by A.R.S. § 1-244 (2002). Second, the estate argues that its right to bring an APSA claim against Murphy…”
Seisinger v. Siebel, 203 P.3d 483 (Ariz. 2009). · cites it 4× “" A.R.S. § 1-244 (2002). Section 12-2604 contains no such declaration.”
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight Sys., Inc., 717 P.2d 434 (Ariz. 1986). · cites it 6× “Thus the focus of our analysis must now turn to the defendant’s major premise, that substantive legal rights may not be retroactively impaired or diminished.”
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 105 P.3d 1163 (Ariz. 2005). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 1-244 (2002). However, 6 [t]his court has previously created an exception to the general rule requiring express language of retroactivity.”
State v. Gum, 153 P.3d 418 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 10× “1999) (same); see also A.R.S. § 1-244 (no statute is retroactive unless it expressly says so).”
State v. Roseberry, 111 P.3d 402 (Ariz. 2005). · cites it 4× “We address only those issues argued to this court and attach a list of preserved claims as an appendix to this opinion. A.”
Schwab v. Matley, 793 P.2d 1088 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 8× “See A.R.S. § 1-244. Disagreeing, the trial court granted Matley's motion to dismiss.”
O'BRIEN v. Escher, 65 P.3d 107 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 6× “¶ 9 Section § 1-244, A.R.S., states that “[n]o statute is retroactive unless expressly declared therein.”
State v. Ellison, 140 P.3d 899 (Ariz. 2006). · cites it 2× “Arizona violates the ex post facto clauses of the federal and state constitutions and A.R.S. § 1-244. Ring III, 204 Ariz. at 545-47 ¶¶ 15-24, 65 P.”
State v. Harrod, 183 P.3d 519 (Ariz. 2008). · cites it 4× “Harrod argues that application of the amended law to his resentencing violates A.R.S. § 1-244 (2002) (“No statute is retroactive unless expressly declared therein.”
Show all 175 citing cases →
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.