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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1831 (2026)

Scope

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

Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or decree is prayed for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect; and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 122 cases (31 in the last 5 years), 1960–2026 · leading case: State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit, 399 P.3d 663 (Ariz. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit, 399 P.3d 663 (Ariz. 2017). · cites it 4× “Otherwise, it is this Court’s responsibility “to resolve the issue” via a process that, as the State notes, is “akin to a standard declaratory judgment action.”
Snyder v. HSBC Bank, USA, N.A., 913 F. Supp. 2d 755 (D. Ariz. 2012). · cites it 4× “Declaratory Relief (Count One) Count One of the AVC alleges that, “[pjursuant A.R.S. § 12-1831 et. seq., the Court has the authority to declare the rights, status and other legal relations of the parties as it pertains to the Real Property at issue in this matter.”
Diessner v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., 618 F. Supp. 2d 1184 (D. Ariz. 2009). · cites it 4× “” 3 Count one of the complaint seeks a declaration pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1831 that defendants “are not entitled to enforce the underlying promissory Note described in the security instrument” and “have no legal claim to title on the subject property.”
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 792 P.2d 749 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1831 Hartford requested a declaratory judgment that, under the theory of equitable subrogation, Aetna was obligated to pay the entire amount of the excess judgment.”
Arizona Bd. of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 806 P.2d 348 (Ariz. 1991). · cites it 4× “This court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's complaint pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1831 et seq., and over the defendants' counterclaim pursuant to Arizona Rules of Procedure for Special Actions and A.”
Arnold v. Arizona Dep't of Health Servs., 775 P.2d 521 (Ariz. 1989). · cites it 2× “, and declaratory relief pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1831 et seq. The trial court dismissed the federal claims upon the defendants’ motion.”
Keggi v. Northbrook Prop. & Cas. Ins., 13 P.3d 785 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 12-1831 to -1846 (1994). The declaratory judgments act provides: Any person interested under a .”
McMann v. City of Tucson, 47 P.3d 672 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “¶ 20 The McManns argue the trial court erred by dismissing their first declaratory judgment case based on its finding that no justiciable controversy existed because the McManns had not executed the use permit.”
Walter Ansley v. Banner Health Network, 459 P.3d 55 (Ariz. 2020). · cites it 2× “¶31 The patients also argue that the Declaratory Judgment Act, A.R.S. § 12-1831, provides a cause of action to challenge the lien statutes.”
Est. of Bohn v. Scott, 915 P.2d 1239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 6× “In our opinion, Arizona’s version of the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, A.R.S. §§ 12-1831 et seq., should not be interpreted in a manner less solicitous of state tax assessment and collection procedures than was 42 U.”
Canyon Del Rio Investors, L.L.C. v. City of Flagstaff, 258 P.3d 154 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “CDR contends the statute of limitations for its declaratory judgment claims did *341 not begin to run until an actual controversy arose between it and the City, which it asserts occurred when the City rejected its application for Parcel R in 2007.”
Indus. Comm'n v. Old Repub. Ins., 219 P.3d 285 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “¶3 The trial court, after oral argument, found that it had subject matter jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, AR.S. § 12-1831 (2003), and dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim under Atizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”
Show all 122 citing cases →
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.