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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-123 (2026)

Jurisdiction and powers

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

A. The superior court shall have original and concurrent jurisdiction as conferred by the constitution, and concurrent jurisdiction with justices of the peace of misdemeanors where the penalty does not exceed a fine of two thousand five hundred dollars or imprisonment for six months.

B. The court, and the judges thereof, shall have all powers and may issue all writs necessary to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1962–2026 · leading case: State v. Rodriguez, 71 P.3d 919 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Rodriguez, 71 P.3d 919 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Generally, that court has such jurisdiction over any criminal case in which the defendant is charged by indictment or information with a felony.”
State v. Payne, 225 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “VI, § 14(4); see also A.R.S. § 12-123(A) (“The superior court shall have original and concurrent jurisdiction as conferred by the constitution----”).”
Lambertus v. Hon. porter/day-strange, 332 P.3d 608 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 12× “Section 25-402 instructs the court to determine whether it has jurisdiction before “conduct[ing] a proceeding concerning legal decision- making or parenting time, including a proceeding to determine the legal decision-making or visitation of a nonparent.”
Lamb v. Superior Court, Etc., 621 P.2d 906 (Ariz. 1980). · cites it 4× “Jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case was conferred upon the superior court by Article 6, § 14, of the Arizona State Constitution, and A.R.S. § 12-123. The superior court exercised its jurisdiction from sometime before April 17, 1973, when the original decree of…”
King v. Uhlmann, 437 P.2d 928 (Ariz. 1968). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. §§ 12-123 and 124 provide that the superior court shall have such jurisdiction as is conferred upon it by the Constitution.”
Arpaio v. Baca, 177 P.3d 312 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “6, § 14(4); A.R.S. § 12-123(A) (2003). As our supreme court noted in Taliaferro v.”
Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Rogers, 366 P.3d 583 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Ariz. Const, art. 6, § 5 (supreme court "shall have” power to issue injunctions "and all other writs necessary and proper to the complete exercise of its appellate and revisory jurisdiction”); A.”
Marks v. LaBerge, 703 P.2d 559 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “” See also A.R.S. § 12-123. This case clearly fits these requirements.”
Rohan Mgmt., Inc. v. Jantzen, 436 P.3d 491 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “2d 18 , 20 (1980) ; see also A.R.S. § 12-123(A) ("The superior court shall have original and concurrent jurisdiction as conferred by the constitution.”
City of Peoria v. Brink's Home Sec., Inc., 229 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “[2] See A.R.S. §§ 12-123 (2003), -163 (2003 & Supp.”
In Re $15,379 in U.S. Currency, 388 P.3d 856 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “2d 1038, 1041 (1993), and could make necessary-orders pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-123(B). See In re Approximately $50,000, 196 Ariz.”
First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Pomona Mach. Co., 486 P.2d 184 (Ariz. 1971). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to filing the complaint, summons was personally served on both defendants in California pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.”
Show all 36 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-123(A) — 12 cases
State v. Payne, 225 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “VI, § 14(4); see also A.R.S. § 12-123(A) (“The superior court shall have original and concurrent jurisdiction as conferred by the constitution----”).”
Arpaio v. Baca, 177 P.3d 312 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “6, § 14(4); A.R.S. § 12-123(A) (2003). As our supreme court noted in Taliaferro v.”
Rohan Mgmt., Inc. v. Jantzen, 436 P.3d 491 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “2d 18 , 20 (1980) ; see also A.R.S. § 12-123(A) ("The superior court shall have original and concurrent jurisdiction as conferred by the constitution.”
Lambertus v. Hon. porter/day-strange, 332 P.3d 608 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “Section 25-402 instructs the court to determine whether it has jurisdiction before “conduct[ing] a proceeding concerning legal decision- making or parenting time, including a proceeding to determine the legal decision-making or visitation of a nonparent.”
Trombi v. Donahoe, 222 P.3d 284 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-123(B) — 9 cases
Lambertus v. Hon. porter/day-strange, 332 P.3d 608 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “Section 25-402 instructs the court to determine whether it has jurisdiction before “conduct[ing] a proceeding concerning legal decision- making or parenting time, including a proceeding to determine the legal decision-making or visitation of a nonparent.”
State v. Payne, 225 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “VI, § 14(4); see also A.R.S. § 12-123(A) (“The superior court shall have original and concurrent jurisdiction as conferred by the constitution----”).”
In Re $15,379 in U.S. Currency, 388 P.3d 856 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “2d 1038, 1041 (1993), and could make necessary-orders pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-123(B). See In re Approximately $50,000, 196 Ariz.”
In Re the Commitment of Robert Flemming, 131 P.3d 478 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
State ex rel. Arizona Dep't of Corr. v. Kiger, 229 P.3d 264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
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.