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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1861 (2026)

Supreme court; questions of law certified by other courts

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The supreme court may answer questions of law certified to it by the supreme court of the United States, a court of appeals of the United States, a United States district court or a tribal court when requested by the certifying court if there are involved in any proceedings before the certifying court questions of law of this state which may be determinative of the cause then pending in the certifying court and as to which it appears to the certifying court there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the supreme court and the intermediate appellate courts of this state.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 94 cases (29 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court, 57 P.3d 379 (Ariz. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court, 57 P.3d 379 (Ariz. 2002). · cites it 22× “We do not refuse to answer a certified question simply because we can conceive a broader question that the Court of Appeals could have posed but did not.”
Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court, 120 P.3d 1092 (Ariz. 2005). · cites it 8× “”) section 12-133 (2000) authorizing only voluntary service?” We have jurisdiction to decide the certified question pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1861 (2001). 1 ¶ 2 We hold that this Court has authority to promulgate a court rule authorizing the superior courts in each county of this…”
Arizonans for Off. English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997). · cites it 2× “” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-1861 (1994). 6 The District Court, on December 8,1988, had denied Yniguez’s application for a temporary restraining order, finding no “imminent danger of the imposition of sanctions” against her.”
Jorge Romero-Millan v. William Barr, 507 P.3d 999 (Ariz. 2022). · cites it 4× “¶6 Section 12-1861 authorizes this Court to answer questions of law certified to it by a federal court if the proceedings before the certifying court involve questions of Arizona law that lack controlling precedent in decisions from this Court or the court of appeals.”
Abelardo Chaparro v. David C Shinn, 459 P.3d 50 (Ariz. 2020). · cites it 2× “” The State contends this sentence does not make Chaparro eligible for parole.”
Julia Vasquez v. Saxon Mortg. Inc, 266 P.3d 1053 (Ariz. 2011). · cites it 4× “¶ 1 Pursuant to AR.S. §§ 12-1861 to -1867 (2003) and Supreme Court Rule 27, we accepted jurisdiction of two questions certified by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona: 1.”
Lachter v. Smith, 101 P.3d 637 (Ariz. 2004). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 12-1861 (2008) (permitting the Arizona Supreme Court, on certain conditions, to “answer questions of law certified to it by .”
Farris v. Advantage Capital Corp., 170 P.3d 250 (Ariz. 2007). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 12-1861 (2003). Our answer to the question is yes.”
Janson v. Christensen, 808 P.2d 1222 (Ariz. 1991). · cites it 2× “6, § 5(6), A.R.S. § 12-1861, and rule 27(b). 1 In response to the district court’s question, we conclude that the saving statute, by its language, applies to an action that is timely filed and then terminated for one of the enumerated reasons, regardless of whether termination…”
Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Craig, 26 P.3d 510 (Ariz. 2001). · cites it 2× “§ 14-2702 or § 20-1127, articulates the applicable rule of survival for a designated beneficiary of an insurance policy? We accepted jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Supreme Court Rule 27(d) and A.R.S. § 12-1861 (2001). II. The Facts ¶2 William J.”
Jacob Benson v. Casa De Capri Enter., 980 F.3d 1328 (9th Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “If the Arizona Supreme Court decides not to accept certification, we will resolve these questions based on our best understanding of Arizona law.”
Tucson Women's Ctr. v. Arizona Med. Bd., 666 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (D. Ariz. 2009). · cites it 6× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1861 and Rule 27 of the Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court, the Court certifies the following question to the Arizona Supreme Court: Whether the payment provision of A.”
Show all 94 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.