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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1307 (2026)

Verdicts in actions to recover specific personal property

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

In an action for the recovery of specific personal property, if the property has not been delivered to the plaintiff, or if the defendant by his answer claims a return thereof, the jury, if its verdict is in favor of the plaintiff, or if its verdict is in favor of the defendant and it also finds that defendant is entitled to have the property returned to him, it shall determine the value of the property and may at the same time assess the damages, if any are claimed in the complaint or answer, which the prevailing party has sustained by reason of the taking or detention of such property.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1966–2017 · leading case: Schoolhouse Educ. Aids, Inc. v. Haag, 699 P.2d 1318 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Schoolhouse Educ. Aids, Inc. v. Haag, 699 P.2d 1318 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. §§ 12-1307 and 12-1308. Because of the extraordinary nature of the issuance of a writ of replevin, general law has held that where a plaintiff has been put in possession of property under a writ, he cannot escape liability to the defendant by voluntarily dismissing his…”
Beck v. Hy-Tech Performance, Inc., 340 P.3d 433 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “2d 575, 576 (1968); accord AR.S. § 12-1307 (2003). Thus, the Becks are correct that their recovery of the Jaguar pursuant to the provisional writ of replevin did not fully resolve their replevin claim.”
Mellen, Inc. v. Biltmore Loan & Jewelry-Scottsdale, LLC, 247 F. Supp. 3d 1084 (D. Ariz. 2017). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 12-1307,-1310. Based on these agreements and concessions, and for reasons stated above, the Court grants summary judgment on the declaratory judgment claim in favor of Mellen, declares Mellen to be the lawful owner of the diamond, orders that Mellen is legally…”
Schatt-Ajax Indus. v. Churchill, 411 P.2d 457 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966). · cites it 2× “The value of the new booths which have replaced the old booths is to be ascertained pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1307 to § 12-1310 inclusive, by taking into consideration their value in place at the time of the bringing of the action.”
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.