Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-250 (2026)

Change of limitation; effect

✓ current as of May 2026

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

When a limitation or period of time prescribed in a law for acquiring a right or barring a remedy or for any purpose has begun to run before an act repealing such law takes effect and the same or any other limitation is prescribed in any other act passed at the same session of the legislature, the time which has already run shall be deemed part of the time prescribed as such limitation by any act passed at the same session of the legislature.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 105 P.3d 1163 (Ariz. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 105 P.3d 1163 (Ariz. 2005). · cites it 2× “§ 12-505(A) (2003) and A.R.S. § 1-250 (2002), respectively. . When vested rights of private parties are involved, constitutional considerations prevent an amended statute of limitations from immediately barring a claim that would have been timely filed under the previously…”

Zuck v. State, 764 P.2d 772 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “, statutory cross-reference to A.R.S. § 1-250 (changing the limitation period) and Cummings v.”

State of Arizona v. Albert F. Vergara (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “¶40 Vergara nevertheless argues that even if the plain language of § 13-107(E) does not support his tolling theory, his “time credit” argument is supported by A.R.S. § 1-250. There, our legislature directed that, generally, when a limitations period has started running “before…”

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.