Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 1

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-245

Subsequent statute as superseding former law

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When a statute has been enacted and has become a law, no other statute or law is continued in force because it is consistent with the statute enacted, but in all cases provided for by the subsequent statute, the statutes, laws and rules theretofore in force, whether consistent or not with the provisions of the subsequent statute, unless expressly continued in force by it, shall be deemed repealed and abrogated.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1960–2026 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Anway
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Anway (1960) ariz · cites it 7× “A.R.S. § 1-245 (formerly § 1-104, A.C.A. 1939) provides: "When a statute has been enacted and has become a law, no other statute or law, is continued in force because it is consistent with the statute enacted, but in all cases provided for by the subsequent statute, the…”
State v. Brown (1979) arizctapp · cites it 6× “Petitioner relies on A.R.S. § 1-245. 1 *407 A.R.S. § 1-245 has no relevance in the matter.”
Hounshell v. White (2008) arizctapp · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 1-245 (2002) (“[I]n all cases provided for by the subsequent statute, the statutes .”
Tucson Gas & Electric Company v. Schantz (1967) arizctapp · cites it 4× “§ 1-201 and A.R.S. § 1-245 mandates this conclusion. A.”
Barth v. Cochise County (2006) arizctapp “§ 1-245, which may be applicable when a later statute conflicts with an earlier one.”
In Re: Erica Krystal Riggins (2024) ariz · cites it 28× “For this proposition, the dissent relies on A.R.S. § 1-245, 1 which provides in relevant part that a former statute is “deemed repealed and abrogated” “in all cases provided for by [a] subsequent statute,” regardless of whether the provisions of the former statute are…”
King v. Henderson (1967) arizctapp · cites it 3× “A.R.S. § 1-245 reads as follows : “§ 1-245.”
ASSOCIATED v. CITY OF PHOENIX (2026) arizctapp · cites it 9× “¶65 The Cities also argue the Local Permission Provision repealed the Prevailing Wage Prohibition under A.R.S. § 1-245. That statute says a former statute is “deemed repealed and abrogated” “in all cases provided for by [a] subsequent statute,” regardless of whether the former…”
State v. Serna (1993) arizctapp · cites it 3× “section 1-245, requires dismissal of the charges because the amended child molestation statute contained no saving clause.”
SHANE NOEL JONES and VICTORIA CRANFORD v. RESPECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE (2022) arizctapp · cites it 2× “2008) (repeal by implication results where subsequent statute covers same subject matter and earlier statute not explicitly retained); see also A.R.S. § 1-245. In any event, we need not resolve the issue here because our opinion does not turn on the ongoing validity of that…”
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.