Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1177

Trial and issue; postponement of trial

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

12-1177. Trial and issue; postponement of trial

A. On the trial of an action of forcible entry or forcible detainer, the only issue shall be the right of actual possession and the merits of title shall not be inquired into.

B. If a jury is demanded, it shall return a verdict of guilty or not guilty of the charge as stated in the complaint. If a jury is not demanded the action shall be tried by the court.

C. For good cause shown, supported by affidavit, the trial may be postponed for a time not to exceed three calendar days in a justice court or ten calendar days in the superior court.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case: Curtis v. Morris
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Curtis v. Morris (1996) ariz · cites it 8× “01 to include transactions in which property is sold means that the merits of title may now be tried in an action for forcible detainer, notwithstanding the contrary provision of A.R.S. § 12-1177(A). We agree with Division One that § 12-1173.”
Carrington Mortgage Services LLC v. Woods (2017) arizctapp · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 12-1177(A); see also Cu/rtis v. Morris, 186 Ariz.”
DVM Co. v. Stag Tobacconist, Ltd. (1983) ariz · cites it 4× “Although the parties’ lease in the instant case provides for attorney’s fees, the court’s authority is limited by the special character of forcible entry and de-tainer actions and by A.R.S. §§ 12-1177 and 12-1178 and therefore such proceedings cannot be expanded by the lease.”
United Effort Plan Trust v. Holm (2004) arizctapp · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-1177 (2003); Phoenix-Sunflower Indus.”
DVM CO. v. Stag Tobacconist, Ltd. (1983) ariz · cites it 4× “Although the parties' lease in the instant case provides for attorney's fees, the court's authority is limited by the special character of forcible entry and detainer actions and by A.R.S. §§ 12-1177 and 12-1178 and therefore such proceedings cannot be expanded by the lease.”
Taylor v. Stanford (1966) ariz · cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 12-1177, subsec. A provides as follows: “A.”
Kadera v. Superior Court (1996) arizctapp · cites it 2× “Petitioners argue since ARLTA’s special detainer action, which incorporates section 12-1177, excludes cooperatives neither proceeding is appropriate.”
Andreola v. Arizona Bank (1976) arizctapp · cites it 2× “Andreola in executing the document did not in fact appear before a notary public. The parties agree that such a defense cannot be raised in a forcible detainer action.”
Industrial Park Corp. v. U. S. I. F. Palo Verde Corp. (1976) arizctapp · cites it 2× “Therefore, under applicable law, Industrial Park is barred as to *207 any matters which it could have raised in that litigation. 1 We cannot agree with this contention.”
Phoenix-Sunflower Industries, Inc. v. Hughes (1970) ariz · cites it 3× “, failed to perform in accordance with the lease, the property reverted and Phoenix-Sunflower became a tenant at sufferance subject to A.”
Heywood v. Ziol (1962) ariz · cites it 2× “However, in the course of such determination it often becomes necessary to resolve both subsidiary issues of fact and law in order to determine who is entitled to possession and these issues are also res judicata.”
Merrifield v. Merrifield (1963) ariz · cites it 3× “Consequently, the trial court held defendant, Corean, not guilty of forcible detainer.”
Show all 51 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1177(A) — 38 cases
Curtis v. Morris (1996) ariz “01 to include transactions in which property is sold means that the merits of title may now be tried in an action for forcible detainer, notwithstanding the contrary provision of A.R.S. § 12-1177(A). We agree with Division One that § 12-1173.”
Carrington Mortgage Services LLC v. Woods (2017) arizctapp “” A.R.S. § 12-1177(A); see also Cu/rtis v. Morris, 186 Ariz.”
Andreola v. Arizona Bank (1976) arizctapp “Andreola in executing the document did not in fact appear before a notary public. The parties agree that such a defense cannot be raised in a forcible detainer action.”
DVM Co. v. Stag Tobacconist, Ltd. (1983) ariz “Although the parties’ lease in the instant case provides for attorney’s fees, the court’s authority is limited by the special character of forcible entry and de-tainer actions and by A.R.S. §§ 12-1177 and 12-1178 and therefore such proceedings cannot be expanded by the lease.”
DVM CO. v. Stag Tobacconist, Ltd. (1983) ariz “Although the parties' lease in the instant case provides for attorney's fees, the court's authority is limited by the special character of forcible entry and detainer actions and by A.R.S. §§ 12-1177 and 12-1178 and therefore such proceedings cannot be expanded by the lease.”
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.