A. A court of appeals is established and constitutes a single court and such court shall be a court of record.
B. The court of appeals shall be divided into two divisions which shall be designated as division 1 and division 2. Division 1 shall have nineteen judges, consisting of the chief judge and six departments of three judges each, denominated, respectively, department A, department B, department C, department D, department E and department F. Division 2 shall have nine judges, consisting of three departments of three judges each, denominated, respectively, department A, department B and department C.
C. Division 1 shall consist of the counties of Maricopa, Yuma, La Paz, Mohave, Coconino, Yavapai, Navajo and Apache.
D. Division 2 shall consist of the counties of Pima, Pinal, Cochise, Santa Cruz, Greenlee, Graham and Gila.
E. The sessions of divisions 1 and 2 shall be held in Phoenix and Tucson, respectively. Sessions may be held at places other than Phoenix or Tucson when in the opinion of a majority of the judges of a division or department the public interest so requires. The judges of the respective divisions and departments may hold sessions in either division and shall do so when directed by the chief justice of the supreme court. Each judge of the court of appeals may participate in matters pending before a different division or department. A matter may be transferred between divisions in order to equalize caseloads and for the best use of judicial resources.
F. Not more than three judges of the court of appeals, including superior court judges and retired judges sitting with the court, shall hear and determine a matter and render a decision, and a majority of two of the three judges shall be sufficient to render a decision.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
432
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case:
State v. Patterson, 218 P.3d 1031 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Patterson, 218 P.3d 1031 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 14× “A.R.S. § 12-120 (2003). As the court grew, the legislature established departments consisting of three judges each to issue decisions of the court.”
Schroeder v. Schroeder, 778 P.2d 1212 (Ariz. 1989).
· cites it 4× “§ 12-120(E) allows for a case arising in one Division to be decided by judges of the other Division. In our case, spousal maintenance was included in a “Property Settlement Agreement” signed by the parties and incorporat *320 ed by reference into the decree.”
Senor T's Restaurant v. Indus. Comm'n, 641 P.2d 877 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 8× “While it is true that the judges of the court of appeals exert equal authority, the voice which declares the law in this court is a single voice by statute.”
State v. Clow, 392 P.3d 512 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “¶ 7 After a five-day trial, the jury convicted Clow as charged. The court sentenced Clow to a term of twenty-five years’ flat time in prison, an aggravated sentence.”
Baum v. Baum, 584 P.2d 604 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “* At the request of Division Two and pursuant to the authority of ARS § 12-120, this case was transferred to Division One for Disposition.”
State v. Greer, 496 P.2d 152 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 4× “For the reasons above stated, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
State v. Marks, 546 P.2d 807 (Ariz. 1976).
· cites it 2× “at the trial court denied appellant his constitutional right to appear and defend in person, that the one month time lapse between appellant’s inculpatory statements and the filing of the complaint was such an excessive delay as to cause a denial of due process, and by way of…”
Stapley v. Stapley, 485 P.2d 1181 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 4× “Note: This cause was decided by the Judges of Division Two as authorized by A.R.S. § 12-120(E). HATHAWAY, Judge (dissenting).”
State v. Hicks, 707 P.2d 331 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “NOTE: This cause was decided by the Judges of Division Two as authorized by A.R.S. § 12-120(E).”
State v. Fogel, 492 P.2d 742 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 2× “NOTE: This cause was decided by the Judges of Division Two as authorized by A.R.S. § 12-120, subsec. E. 1 . We do not decide whether the statute will operate as a bar when the indictment is quashed and the court orders a resubmission to the grand jury under Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-120(A) — 7 cases
Senor T's Restaurant v. Indus. Comm'n, 641 P.2d 877 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
“While it is true that the judges of the court of appeals exert equal authority, the voice which declares the law in this court is a single voice by statute.”
State v. Patterson, 218 P.3d 1031 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“A.R.S. § 12-120 (2003). As the court grew, the legislature established departments consisting of three judges each to issue decisions of the court.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-120(A)(1) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-120(B) — 1 case
State v. Patterson, 218 P.3d 1031 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“A.R.S. § 12-120 (2003). As the court grew, the legislature established departments consisting of three judges each to issue decisions of the court.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-120(C) — 1 case
Schroeder v. Schroeder, 778 P.2d 1212 (Ariz. 1989).
“§ 12-120(E) allows for a case arising in one Division to be decided by judges of the other Division. In our case, spousal maintenance was included in a “Property Settlement Agreement” signed by the parties and incorporat *320 ed by reference into the decree.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-120(E) — 59 cases
Schroeder v. Schroeder, 778 P.2d 1212 (Ariz. 1989).
“§ 12-120(E) allows for a case arising in one Division to be decided by judges of the other Division. In our case, spousal maintenance was included in a “Property Settlement Agreement” signed by the parties and incorporat *320 ed by reference into the decree.”
Stapley v. Stapley, 485 P.2d 1181 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971).
“Note: This cause was decided by the Judges of Division Two as authorized by A.R.S. § 12-120(E). HATHAWAY, Judge (dissenting).”
State v. Hicks, 707 P.2d 331 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“NOTE: This cause was decided by the Judges of Division Two as authorized by A.R.S. § 12-120(E).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-120(F) — 4 cases
State v. Patterson, 218 P.3d 1031 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“A.R.S. § 12-120 (2003). As the court grew, the legislature established departments consisting of three judges each to issue decisions of the court.”
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.