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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-253 (2026)

Effect of penal laws on civil remedies, forfeitures, military laws and contempts

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

A. The omission to specify or affirm by law liability to damages, penalty, forfeiture or other remedy imposed by law and allowed to be recovered or enforced in a civil action or proceeding for an act or omission declared punishable by law, does not affect a right to recover or enforce such liability.

B. The omission to specify or affirm by law any ground of forfeiture of a public office, or other trust, or special authority conferred by law, or to impeach, remove, depose or suspend a public officer or other person holding a trust, appointment or other special authority conferred by law, does not affect such forfeiture or power, or any proceeding authorized by law to carry into effect such impeachment, removal, deposition or suspension.

C. Laws defining and punishing criminal offenses do not affect any power conferred by law upon courts martial, or other military authority or officer, to impose or inflict punishment upon offenders against military law, nor any power conferred by law to impose or inflict punishment for a contempt.  

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2006–2006 · leading case: Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Comm'n, 132 P.3d 1187 (Ariz. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Comm'n, 132 P.3d 1187 (Ariz. 2006). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 1-253(B) (2002) (permitting “impeachment, removal, deposition or suspension” from office for certain offenses, even if the offense does not specify removal from office as a potential penalty).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-253(B) — 1 case
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Comm'n, 132 P.3d 1187 (Ariz. 2006). “A.R.S. § 1-253(B) (2002) (permitting “impeachment, removal, deposition or suspension” from office for certain offenses, even if the offense does not specify removal from office as a potential penalty).”
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.