Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-109
Rules and administrative orders of pleading, practice and procedure; adoption; prohibitions; electronic signatures; distribution
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A. The supreme court, by rules or administrative orders, shall regulate pleading, practice and procedure in judicial proceedings in all courts of this state to simplify pleading, practice and procedure and promote speedy determination of litigation on its merits.
B. The rules and administrative orders shall not do any of the following:
1. Abridge, enlarge or modify substantive rights of a litigant.
2. Abridge, enlarge or modify statutory, contractual or common law real property rights or questions of substantive law.
C. The court may allow documents that require a sworn written declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath or affidavit to be signed with an electronic signature.
D. The supreme court shall print and distribute the rules and administrative orders to all members of the state bar and to all other persons who apply.
E. The rules shall not become effective until sixty days after distribution.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1956–2026 · leading case: In Re Shannon
In Re Shannon (1994)
“Effect of A.R.S. § 12-109 on Court's Power to Assess Costs and Expenses Respondent argues that § 12-109 limits the court's power to assess costs and expenses in a disciplinary proceeding to only those costs that may be taxed in a civil action.”
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty (2001)
“; see also A.R.S. § 12-109(A) (1992). ADOR claims that by certifying the class in Ladewig's lawsuit, the tax *866 court expanded its own jurisdiction to include parties who have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies or whose claims are barred by the statute of…”
Hoover v. Ronwin (1984)
“Notwithstanding this directive, he argues that Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-109 (1982) provided that amendments to the Supreme Court's Rules may not become effective until 60 days after publication and distribution.”
Daou v. Harris (1984)
“§ 12-567(A) is substantive or procedural. Substantive rights created by statute cannot be enlarged or diminished by rules promulgated by this court.”
Paul E. v. Courtney F. (2019)
“CONCLUSION ¶41 We vacate the court of appeals' opinion except for ¶¶ 34-35 and 39. We vacate the family court's orders entered March 23, March 31, June 10, and June 13, 2016, to the extent those orders appointed and granted authority to Vigil and Dr.”
Book Cellar, Inc. v. City of Phoenix (1983)
“[1] Authorizing the superior court to entertain certiorari actions on the basis of "abuse of discretion" argue appellees, would clearly "enlarge" the rights of appellant by enabling it to file an "appeal" not authorized by statute or by the Arizona Constitution.”
Arizona Podiatry Ass'n v. Director of Insurance (1966)
“6, § 5; 4 A.R.S. § 12-109; 17 A.R.S., Rule 47(b); State v.”
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Waldren (2007)
“” A.R.S. § 12-109(A) (2003). ¶ 21 For statutory dissolution actions, the legislature “defines the boundaries of a dissolution court’s jurisdiction, and the court may not exceed its jurisdiction even when exercising its equitable powers.”
Albano v. SHEA HOMES LTD. PARTNERSHIP (2011)
“’ ” (quoting A.R.S. § 12-109(A))). ¶ 27 We agree that “many of the policy considerations present in American Pipe would support tolling a statute of repose.”
Schenek v. Schenek (1989)
“*581 He argues that the guidelines violate A.R.S. § 12-109 which permits the supreme court to make procedural rules but not to “abridge, enlarge or modify substantive rights of a litigant.”
State v. Birmingham (1964)
“§ 12-2101 the words “order” and “judgment” as cognates, that is, closely allied in meaning in the sense of a final disposition of a litigant’s rights and not as a command, directive or decision on an intermediate point which does not dispose of the principal issue or issues in…”
Grady v. Barth (2013)
“” AR.S. § 12-109(A) (2003). Thus, even if we were to read Eviction Rule 17 as Tri-City does, the procedural provisions of the FED statutes are an “integral part of the right itself and are not solely procedural,” and a procedural rule, even one subsequently enacted, cannot…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-109(A) — 15 cases
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty (2001)
“; see also A.R.S. § 12-109(A) (1992). ADOR claims that by certifying the class in Ladewig's lawsuit, the tax *866 court expanded its own jurisdiction to include parties who have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies or whose claims are barred by the statute of…”
Paul E. v. Courtney F. (2019)
“CONCLUSION ¶41 We vacate the court of appeals' opinion except for ¶¶ 34-35 and 39. We vacate the family court's orders entered March 23, March 31, June 10, and June 13, 2016, to the extent those orders appointed and granted authority to Vigil and Dr.”
Book Cellar, Inc. v. City of Phoenix (1983)
“[1] Authorizing the superior court to entertain certiorari actions on the basis of "abuse of discretion" argue appellees, would clearly "enlarge" the rights of appellant by enabling it to file an "appeal" not authorized by statute or by the Arizona Constitution.”
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Waldren (2007)
“” A.R.S. § 12-109(A) (2003). ¶ 21 For statutory dissolution actions, the legislature “defines the boundaries of a dissolution court’s jurisdiction, and the court may not exceed its jurisdiction even when exercising its equitable powers.”
Albano v. SHEA HOMES LTD. PARTNERSHIP (2011)
“’ ” (quoting A.R.S. § 12-109(A))). ¶ 27 We agree that “many of the policy considerations present in American Pipe would support tolling a statute of repose.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-109(B) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-109(B)(1) — 2 cases
Nunez v. Valente (2026)
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-109(B)(5) — 1 case
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.