Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1201 (2026)

Private way of necessity defined

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

"Private way of necessity" as used in this article means right of way on, over, across, or through the land of another for means of ingress and egress, and the construction and maintenance thereon of roads, overhead transmission lines, pole lines, power lines, canals, ditches, flumes, shafts, tunnels, pipe lines, drains, including, but not limited to, embankments, diversion dams, dikes, ditches, canals, flumes and levees for the purpose of removing water from land or preventing accumulation of water on land, and tramways, including, but not limited to, aerial tramways and industrial railroads, for mining, milling, lumbering, agricultural, domestic or sanitary purposes.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case: Tumacacori Mission Land Dev., Ltd. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 297 P.3d 923 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tumacacori Mission Land Dev., Ltd. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 297 P.3d 923 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “¶ 3 After this court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Union Pacific, but before this court’s mandate had issued, Tumacacori filed a motion in the trial court to amend its complaint by adding theories of easement by common law necessity and easement by statutory necessity…”
Bickel v. Hansen, 819 P.2d 957 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “17 of the Constitution of Arizona as implemented by A.R.S. §§ 12-1201 et seq. A private way of necessity includes a right-of-way for power lines.”
Combs v. DuBois, 662 P.2d 140 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “When DuBois refused to grant Combs an easement of ingress and egress through their property, Combs filed a complaint seeking a private way of necessity pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1201. Appellee Brush was later brought in as a defendant since part of the proposed easement would…”
Stein v. Darby, 126 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961). “A number of western states have statutes providing for eminent domain for "public uses" and list as one of such public uses "Byroads leading from highways to residences and farms.”
Porter v. Griffith, 543 P.2d 138 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975). “Although the matter was never presented in this case, the appellees may have a remedy through the condemnation of a private way of necessity pursuant to §§ 12-1201 and 12-1202 of the Arizona Revised Stattutes, Reversed.”
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Giglio, 549 P.2d 162 (Ariz. 1976). · cites it 2× “As stated earlier, the demossing bridge is a structure used for the periodic cleaning of the canal. The demossing bridge is about 100 to 200 yards east of the Pima Road Bridge.”
Chandler Flyers, Inc. v. Stellar Dev. Corp., 592 P.2d 387 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “2d 593, 598 (1949), construing Arizona’s statutory private way of necessity provisions, A.R.S. §§ 12-1201 and 1202. 1 Absolute necessity is not required.”
Fix v. Union Pac. R.R., 982 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (D. Ariz. 2013). · cites it 4× “The FAC consists of five counts: (1) prescriptive easement to use the Crossing for ingress and egress; (2) right-of-way easement; (3) private right of necessity under A.R.S. §§ 12-1201 and 12-1202 et seq.; (4) easement by common law necessity; and (5) injunctive relief.”
Salt River Valley Water Users'ass'n v. Giglio, 549 P.2d 162 (Ariz. 1976). · cites it 2× “The demossing bridge is about 100 to 200 yards east of the Pima Road Bridge.”
McEuen v. Christensen (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 12-1201 to -1203. A person entitled to the beneficial use of land, “which is so situated with respect to the land of another that it is necessary for its proper use and enjoyment to have and maintain a private way of necessity .”
Chavez v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “We have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-1201(A)(1). DISCUSSION ¶10 On appeal, Chavez argues that the superior court erred in (1) denying his motion for change of judge; and (2) finding that he did not comply with the notice of claim statute.”
Cavness v. Ortega (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “Cavness timely appealed and this Court has jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-1201(A)(1). DISCUSSION I. Constitutionality of A.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1201(A)(1) — 2 cases
Chavez v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “We have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-1201(A)(1). DISCUSSION ¶10 On appeal, Chavez argues that the superior court erred in (1) denying his motion for change of judge; and (2) finding that he did not comply with the notice of claim statute.”
Cavness v. Ortega (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “Cavness timely appealed and this Court has jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-1201(A)(1). DISCUSSION I. Constitutionality of A.”
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.