Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1836 (2026)

Discretionary

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or decree, if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1962–2025 · leading case: Murphy Farrell Dev., LLLP v. Sourant, 272 P.3d 355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Murphy Farrell Dev., LLLP v. Sourant, 272 P.3d 355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “”) section 12-1836 (2003), such relief is inappropriate because no justiciable controversy exists between the parties and, in any event, the right-of-first-refusal provision is invalid.”

Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Frazier, 375 P.2d 18 (Ariz. 1962). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-1836 provides that: “The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or decree, if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding.”

Pena v. Fullinwider, 601 P.2d 1326 (Ariz. 1979). · cites it 2× “Appellee, therefore, argues that the trial court had discretion to dismiss the action because A.R.S. § 12-1836 empowers a court to refuse to enter a declaratory judgment if it would not terminate the controversy giving rise to the proceedings.”

Café Valley, Inc. v. Navidi, 330 P.3d 1009 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “” AR.S. § 12-1836; accord Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp.”

W. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Robinson, 483 P.2d 806 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 2× “Nor is there here involved a situation contemplated by A.R.S. § 12-1836 which provides that: “The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or decree, if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving…”

Simmons v. Temple (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 12-1836. ¶17 Simmons’ second complaint does not clearly state what declaratory relief she sought.”

Burns v. Apsc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 12-1836. ¶34 Here, Burns sought a declaratory judgment to give effect to the superior court’s rulings in his favor on the motion to dismiss his first amended complaint.”

Walden v. Mesa Unified (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 12-1836. The UDJA is “remedial” and should be “liberally construed and administered,” A.”

Richey v. City of Phoenix, 501 P.2d 49 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 3× “Complaint states a claim, the Court, in_ *210 the exercise of the discretion granted it under A.R.S. 12-1836, refuses to render a declaratory judgment herein for the reason that such a judgment, if rendered, would not terminate the uncertainty giving rise to this proceeding…”

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.