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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1202 (2026)

Right to private way of necessity; limitation

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

A. An owner of or a person entitled to the beneficial use of land, mines or mining claims and structures thereon, 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 over, across, through, and on the premises, may condemn and take lands of another, sufficient in area for the construction and maintenance of the private way of necessity.

B. If the condemnation is upon, over, or affects the range lands of another, the area condemned shall be strictly defined, and livestock driven upon or over the private way shall be accompanied by and under the control of sufficient drivers or herders to confine the livestock to the condemned area, and the livestock shall be so confined to that area and kept moving directly across the property condemned until they have been completely removed from the condemned area.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: Dabrowski v. Bartlett, 442 P.3d 811 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dabrowski v. Bartlett, 442 P.3d 811 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 7× “Before Jacob and his wife purchased 1 Because neither party raised the issue of whether granting a common law easement by implied way of necessity is proper under Article 2, § 17 of the Arizona Constitution and the legislature’s prescribed remedy for landlocked property in…”
Tobias v. Dailey, 998 P.2d 1091 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 8× “Plaintiffs, asserting that they lack adequate access to their property, seek to condemn a private way of necessity over the Defendants’ roadway pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1202(A). Defendants maintain, however, that Plaintiffs are entitled to an implied way of necessity over the…”
Coll. Book Centers, Inc. v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners' Ass'n, 241 P.3d 897 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “Otherwise, Vanyo could seek to obtain a private way of necessity under Arizona’s private condemnation statute, A.R.S. § 12-1202(A) (2003). ¶ 30 To establish the existence of an implied way of necessity, Vanyo was required to prove that: (1) Mamie Maude (the dominant property)…”
Barnes v. Babbitt, 329 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (D. Ariz. 2004). · cites it 12× “As the defendants and the Environmental Plaintiffs point out, however, A.R.S. § 12-1202 merely permits the condemnation of lands for a private way of necessity under certain conditions.”
Gulotta v. Triano, 608 P.2d 81 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “The question on this appeal is whether one who has landlocked his property by voluntary alienation of a means of ingress and egress may thereafter acquire a private way of necessity over other land by condemnation under A.R.S. § 12-1202. Plaintiffs owned and operated a…”
Siemsen v. Davis, 998 P.2d 1084 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “¶ 1 Arizona’s private condemnation statute, A.R.S. § 12-1202 (1994), permits a landlocked private landowner to condemn a “private way of necessity” across lands of another upon showing a “reasonable necessity.”
Menchaca v. Maricopa Cmty. Coll. Dist., 595 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (D. Ariz. 2009). “Even assuming that the Ninth Circuit was articulating an exception, and even assuming that Menchaea’s statement could be termed criminal under section 12-1202(A)(1), that statement would not fall under the exception because it must also be “egregious.”
McEuen v. Christensen (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “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 .”
New Sundance v. Cutler (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “" A.R.S. § 12-1202(A). The "landowner seeking to condemn a private way of necessity over the lands of another must show a 'reasonable necessity' for the taking.”
Cave Buttes, L.L.C. v. Comm'r, 147 T.C. No. 10 (2016). “Paul mining patents; ߦ it had access pursuant to an implied easement; ߦ it could obtain access by submitting an application and purchasing a right-of-way from the FCD and Arizona; and ߦ it could file a claim under Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1202(A) — 6 cases
Tobias v. Dailey, 998 P.2d 1091 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “Plaintiffs, asserting that they lack adequate access to their property, seek to condemn a private way of necessity over the Defendants’ roadway pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1202(A). Defendants maintain, however, that Plaintiffs are entitled to an implied way of necessity over the…”
Dabrowski v. Bartlett, 442 P.3d 811 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “Before Jacob and his wife purchased 1 Because neither party raised the issue of whether granting a common law easement by implied way of necessity is proper under Article 2, § 17 of the Arizona Constitution and the legislature’s prescribed remedy for landlocked property in…”
Coll. Book Centers, Inc. v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners' Ass'n, 241 P.3d 897 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “Otherwise, Vanyo could seek to obtain a private way of necessity under Arizona’s private condemnation statute, A.R.S. § 12-1202(A) (2003). ¶ 30 To establish the existence of an implied way of necessity, Vanyo was required to prove that: (1) Mamie Maude (the dominant property)…”
Siemsen v. Davis, 998 P.2d 1084 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “¶ 1 Arizona’s private condemnation statute, A.R.S. § 12-1202 (1994), permits a landlocked private landowner to condemn a “private way of necessity” across lands of another upon showing a “reasonable necessity.”
McEuen v. Christensen (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “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 .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1202(A)(1) — 1 case
Menchaca v. Maricopa Cmty. Coll. Dist., 595 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (D. Ariz. 2009). “Even assuming that the Ninth Circuit was articulating an exception, and even assuming that Menchaea’s statement could be termed criminal under section 12-1202(A)(1), that statement would not fall under the exception because it must also be “egregious.”
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.