Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 10
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-3631 (2026)

Standing

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

A. A proceeding may be brought in the right of a domestic corporation to procure a judgment in its favor by either:

1. In the case of a corporation that has members, any member or members having twenty-five per cent or more of the voting power or by fifty members, whichever is less.

2. In the case of a corporation that does not have members, any director or twenty-five per cent of the directors, whichever is greater.

B. In any such proceeding, each complainant shall both:

1. Have been a member or director, as applicable, of the corporation at the time of the act or omission complained of.

2. Fairly and adequately represent the interests of the corporation in enforcing the right of the corporation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2019–2026 · leading case: Iqtunheimr v. Val Vista Lakes (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Iqtunheimr v. Val Vista Lakes (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 11× “A.R.S. §§ 10-3631, -3632. Because the homeowner satisfied neither requirement here, the superior court properly dismissed the claims.”
Iqtunheimr v. Val Vista Lakes (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 9× “1; A.R.S. §§ 10-3631, -3632; see Judson, 245 Ariz.”
Imh v. Recorp (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “¶15 On this issue, Recorp first argues that "IMH's derivative status is contestable" and "IMH may lack capacity to sue Recorp" because "[t]he record does not reflect that IMH has proven that it meets" standing requirements or that it followed the demand process of A.R.S. §§…”
Iqtunheimr v. Val Vista Lakes (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 10-3631, -3632. A professional, competent attorney would have understood this was a derivative lawsuit and sought to comply with the requirements for derivative lawsuits.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-3631(A) — 1 case
Iqtunheimr v. Val Vista Lakes (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “1; A.R.S. §§ 10-3631, -3632; see Judson, 245 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-3631(A)(1) — 2 cases
Iqtunheimr v. Val Vista Lakes (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). “A.R.S. §§ 10-3631, -3632. Because the homeowner satisfied neither requirement here, the superior court properly dismissed the claims.”
Iqtunheimr v. Val Vista Lakes (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “1; A.R.S. §§ 10-3631, -3632; see Judson, 245 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-3631(B) — 1 case
Iqtunheimr v. Val Vista Lakes (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). “A.R.S. §§ 10-3631, -3632. Because the homeowner satisfied neither requirement here, the superior court properly dismissed the claims.”
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.