Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1802
Prohibition upon granting injunctions for certain purposes
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
An injunction shall not be granted:
1. To stay a judicial proceeding pending at the commencement of the action in which the injunction is demanded, unless the restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of such proceedings.
2. To stay proceedings in a court of the United States.
3. To stay proceedings in another state upon a judgment of a court of that state.
4. To prevent enforcement of a public statute by officers of the law for the public benefit.
5. To prevent breach of a contract, the performance of which would not be specifically enforced.
6. To prevent the exercise of a public or private office in a lawful manner by the person in possession.
7. To prevent a legislative act by a municipal corporation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1960–2023 · leading case: Boruch v. State ex rel. Halikowski
Boruch v. State ex rel. Halikowski (2017)
“Because A.R.S. § 12-1802 does not bar the injunctive relief requested in the complaint, we reverse the superior court’s dismissal of the complaint and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Town of Paradise Valley v. Gulf Leisure Corp. (1976)
“Reilly, supra; Van Laten v. City of Chicago, supra; Napierkowski v.”
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis (2012)
“The State’s conclusoiy citation to A.R.S. § 12-1802(4) (2003) in its reply brief is inapplicable.”
Wallace v. Shields (1992)
“section 12-1802 this court cannot enjoin him from doing what the law empowers him to do.”
Williams v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMA, ETC. (1972)
“By A.R.S. § 12-1802 [6], an injunction shall not be granted "[t]o prevent the exercise of a public * * * office in a lawful manner * * *.”
Board of Regents of the Universities & State College v. City of Tempe (1960)
“, *302 The City urges preliminarily -that, by virtue of A.R.S. § 12-1802, the Superior Court was without jurisdiction to entertain the Board’s application for injunctive relief against the City and its officials.”
Titus v. Superior Court, Maricopa County (1962)
“Petitioner contends that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued the injunction in disregard of A.R.S. § 12-1802 (5) which provides in relevant part: “An injunction shall not be granted: # * * * * * “5.”
Zeigler v. Kirschner (1989)
“and A.R.S. § 12-1802; and (5) whether the named plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust their state administrative remedies precluded assertion of plaintiffs’ state-law claims for injunctive and declaratory relief.”
Arizona Society of Pathologists v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration (2002)
“The court ruled, alternatively, that it was without subject matter jurisdiction to grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief; that Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for relief; that injunctive relief was inconsistent with the AHCCCS statutory scheme and A.”
Arizona State Land Department v. McFate (1960)
“§ 37-214 and that as no appeal was duly taken under that section, the order of the Commissioner directing the sale of the parcels in issue is final; that by virtue of A.R.S. § 12-1802, subdivision 6, petitioners cannot be enjoined from performing their official duties; and that…”
Arpaio v. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (2010)
“See A.R.S. § 12-1802 (2003) *364 (precluding injunctive relief to prevent “the exercise of a public or private office in a lawful manner” by an office holder).”
State Ex Rel. Berger v. Myers (1972)
“By statute, § 12-1802, the legislature stated the circumstances under which injunctions may not be granted by a court in Arizona.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1802(1) — 2 cases
Jurju v. Ile (2023)
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1802(4) — 5 cases
Boruch v. State ex rel. Halikowski (2017)
“Because A.R.S. § 12-1802 does not bar the injunctive relief requested in the complaint, we reverse the superior court’s dismissal of the complaint and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis (2012)
“The State’s conclusoiy citation to A.R.S. § 12-1802(4) (2003) in its reply brief is inapplicable.”
Wallace v. Shields (1992)
“section 12-1802 this court cannot enjoin him from doing what the law empowers him to do.”
Hill v. State (2022)
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1802(5) — 5 cases
Titus v. Superior Court, Maricopa County (1962)
“Petitioner contends that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued the injunction in disregard of A.R.S. § 12-1802 (5) which provides in relevant part: “An injunction shall not be granted: # * * * * * “5.”
Bryceland v. Northey (1989)
Jurju v. Ile (2023)
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1802(6) — 1 case
Boruch v. State ex rel. Halikowski (2017)
“Because A.R.S. § 12-1802 does not bar the injunctive relief requested in the complaint, we reverse the superior court’s dismissal of the complaint and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1802(7) — 2 cases
Town of Paradise Valley v. Gulf Leisure Corp. (1976)
“Reilly, supra; Van Laten v. City of Chicago, supra; Napierkowski v.”
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.