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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-249 (2026)

Repealing act; effect on pending action or accrued right

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

No action or proceeding commenced before a repealing act takes effect, and no right accrued is affected by the repealing act, but proceedings therein shall conform to the new act so far as applicable.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2022 · leading case: Brunet v. Murphy, 135 P.3d 714 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brunet v. Murphy, 135 P.3d 714 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 24× “Thus, pursuant to A.R.S. § 1-249, this accrued right could not be affected by a subsequent repealing act.”
State v. Aguilar, 178 P.3d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “¶ 40 Citing A.R.S. § 1-249 and Brunet v. Murphy, 212 Ariz.”
Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Reinstein, 150 P.3d 782 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “Therefore, the right of these parents and of any parent against whom ADES was proceeding and who asked for a jury trial before December 31, 2006, was not affected by the repeal because the right had accrued and vested before then.”
Watts v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 210 P.3d 1268 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 9× “Section 1-249 Does Not Preclude the Retroactive Application of the 2000 Amendments ¶28 Taxpayers alternatively contend that the 2000 amendment should not apply to their claim for those tax years prior to its enactment.”
City of Apache Junction v. Doolittle, 345 P.3d 138 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “” A.R.S. § 1-249 (2002). See Higgins’ Estate v.”
McBroom v. Ethicon Inc. (D. Ariz. 2022). · cites it 4× “The Court of Appeals addressed two questions, whether 16 the APSA amendment applied retroactively to the estate’s claim and whether application 17 of the amendment was barred by A.R.S. § 1-249. Id. at 717-19.5 18 The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not apply the…”
State of Arizona v. Roberto Rosadillo Aguilar (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “¶40 Citing A.R.S. § 1-249 and Brunet v. Murphy, 212 Ariz.”
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.