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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-245 (2026)

Subsequent statute as superseding former law

✓ 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

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or not with the provisions of the subsequent statute, unless expressly continued in force by it, shall be deemed repealed and abrogated.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, 349 P.2d 774 (Ariz. 1960).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Morrison v. Anway, 349 P.2d 774 (Ariz. 1960). · 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, 599 P.2d 859 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · 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, 199 P.3d 636 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 1-245 (2002) (“[I]n all cases provided for by the subsequent statute, the statutes .”
Tucson Gas & Elec. Co. v. Schantz, 428 P.2d 686 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 4× “§ 1-201 and A.R.S. § 1-245 mandates this conclusion. A.”
Barth v. Cochise Cnty., 138 P.3d 1186 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “§ 1-245, which may be applicable when a later statute conflicts with an earlier one.”
In re Erica Krystal Riggins, 544 P.3d 64 (Ariz. 2024). · cites it 28× “Thus, the distinction that the dissent draws between “implicit repeal” and “operation of law” is illusory.”
King v. Henderson, 423 P.2d 370 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 3× “A.R.S. § 1-245 reads as follows : “§ 1-245.”
Associated v. City of Phoenix, 587 P.3d 635 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 9× “We deny their request under § 12-348 because they do not identify the subsection entitling them to fees, nor do they explain why they are entitled to fees.”
Shane Noel Jones v. Respect the Will of the People, 517 P.3d 1188 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “Nothing in the plain language of § 19-101(A) mandates such a result.”
State v. Serna, 857 P.2d 384 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “section 1-245, requires dismissal of the charges because the amended child molestation statute contained no saving clause.”
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.