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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-122 (2026)

General power of superior court

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

The superior court, in addition to the powers conferred by constitution, rule or statute, may proceed according to the common law.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1964–2020 · leading case: State v. Payne, 225 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Payne, 225 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 12-122. ¶ 9 Although broad, a superior court’s original jurisdiction is not unlimited.”
Bergeron Ex Rel. Perez v. O'NEIL, 74 P.3d 952 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “" The respondent judges rely on A.R.S. § 12-122, which states that "[t]he superior court, in addition to the powers conferred by constitution, rule or statute, may proceed according to the common law.”
Gatecliff v. Great Repub. Life Ins., 744 P.2d 29 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “We do so not because the defendant raised the issue, but because the trial court injected considerations pertinent to the analysis of personal jurisdiction into its determination of defendant’s motion.”
Campbell v. Thurman, 393 P.2d 906 (Ariz. 1964). · cites it 4× “The State contends that A.R.S. § 12-122 authorizing the Superior Courts to “proceed according to the common law” confers jurisdiction to grant rehearings in criminal cases, and as applied to this case, on a motion to quash an indictment.”
Goodman v. Gordon, 447 P.2d 230 (Ariz. 1968). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-122 provides that the superior court, in addition to the powers conferred by constitution, rule, or statute, “may proceed according to the common law.”
Elizabeth W. v. State of Arizona, 287 P.3d 821 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 12-122, 12-123(B); Fenton v. Howard, 118 Ariz.”
Belcher v. Superior Court, 466 P.2d 755 (Ariz. 1970). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-122 provides that the superior court, in addition to the powers conferred by constitution, rule, or statute, ‘may proceed according to the common law.”
State ex rel. Arizona Dep't of Corr. v. Kiger, 229 P.3d 264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “We readily conclude, however, that the superior court’s order directing that ADOC transport Roseberry is a valid exercise of its inherent authority. Under A.R.S. § 12-123(B) (2003), “[t]he court, and the judges thereof, shall have all powers and may issue all writs necessary to…”
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 12-122. 6 ¶9 Although broad, a superior court’s original jurisdiction is not unlimited.”
State v. Md Helicopters Inc (Ariz. 2020). · cites it 2× “at 75–76 (including the common law within the meaning of “law”); A.R.S. § 12-122 (“The superior court, in addition to the powers conferred by constitution, rule or statute, may proceed according to the common law.”
Jennifer L. Bergeron v. Hon. Colin Campbell (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “” The respondent judges rely on A.R.S. § 12-122, which states that “[t]he superior court, in addition to the powers conferred by constitution, rule or statute, may proceed according to the common law.”
State Ex Rel. Dept. of Corr. v. Kiger, 229 P.3d 264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “We readily conclude, however, that the superior court's order directing that ADOC transport Roseberry is a valid exercise of its inherent authority. Under A.R.S. § 12-123(B) (2003), "[t]he court, and the judges thereof, shall have all powers and may issue all writs necessary to…”
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.