Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1801
Granting of injunctions; grounds
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Judges of the superior court may grant writs of injunction:
1. When it appears that the party applying for the writ is entitled to the relief demanded, and such relief or any part thereof requires the restraint of some act prejudicial to the applicant.
2. When, pending litigation, it appears that a party is doing some act respecting the subject of litigation, or threatens or is about to do some act, or is procuring or suffering some act to be done, in violation of the rights of the applicant, which would tend to render the judgment ineffectual.
3. In all other cases when applicant is entitled to an injunction under the principles of equity.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: Nu-Tred Tire Co. v. Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp.
Nu-Tred Tire Co. v. Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp. (1978)
“The statutory authorization for injunctive relief in Arizona can be found at A.R.S. §§ 12-1801, et seq. The procedural rules by which injunctive relief is invoked are found in R.”
State Ex Rel. Milstead v. Melvin (1984)
“A.R.S. § 12-1801. Rather, in the controversion context, restoration, i.”
Dowling v. Stapley (2008)
“A.R.S. § 12-1801 (2003) (emphasis added).”
TP Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Simms (2013)
“Taking any other action which has the purpose or effect or [sic] withdrawing or removing J & R as the sole General Partner of TP, or nominating, [or] voting for any other person or entity as General Partner of TP.”
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. v. Pugliani (1985)
“This procedural device could have prevented disbursal of trust proceeds, and its accompanying bond would have protected both Stewart and the clients from any frivolous action.”
Wilcox v. Waldman (1987)
“An injunction, for instance, was initially used in Market. This procedural device could have prevented disbursal of trust proceeds, and its accompanying bond would have protected both Stewart [the trustee] and the clients from any frivolous action.”
AEA Federal Credit Union v. Yuma Funding, Inc. (2015)
“, A.R.S. § 12-1801 (describing grounds for injunction), with A.”
Nordin v. Kaldenbaugh (1967)
“We conclude that the defendant has answered his own questions since it is certainly not an unreasonable requirement that he, when appropriate circumstances arise, should go to the trial court and present the circumstances and request an appropriate increase in his salary and…”
Troy King v. Julia Owner LLC, et al. (2025)
““Conspiracy (Civil Tort), A.R.S. § 12-1801”; and 6 7. “Harassment (Based on Racial Discrimination)[.”
Arborcraft v. Arizona Urban (2023)
“A (providing for injunctive relief when trade secrets are misappropriated); see also A.R.S. § 12-1801 (providing for injunctive relief generally); TP Racing, 232 Ariz.”
Wright v. Mailatyar (2023)
“See A.R.S. § 12-1801 (authorizing “judges of the superior court” to grant injunctive relief); Ahwatukee Custom Estates Management Ass’n, Inc.”
Clay v. Geiser (2025)
“5(b) (giving court of appeals jurisdiction over the “[g]ranting or dissolving an injunction or refusing to grant or dissolve an injunction or appointing a receiver”).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1801(1) — 1 case
Nordin v. Kaldenbaugh (1967)
“We conclude that the defendant has answered his own questions since it is certainly not an unreasonable requirement that he, when appropriate circumstances arise, should go to the trial court and present the circumstances and request an appropriate increase in his salary and…”
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.