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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2001 (2026)

Granting of writ

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

The writ of certiorari may be granted by the supreme and superior courts or by any judge thereof, in all cases when an inferior tribunal, board or officer, exercising judicial functions, has exceeded its jurisdiction and there is no appeal, nor, in the judgment of the court, a plain, speedy and adequate remedy.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1956–2026 · leading case: City of Surprise v. acc/lake Pleasant, 437 P.3d 865 (Ariz. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Surprise v. acc/lake Pleasant, 437 P.3d 865 (Ariz. 2019). · cites it 8× “¶5 We accepted jurisdiction over this special action to clarify the scope of the Commission’s authority over eminent domain proceedings pursuant to A.”
Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232 (1981). · cites it 4× “Under Arizona law, the prosecution is authorized to seek review, by certiorari, when its claim is that the lower court has exceeded its jurisdiction or has abused its discretion.”
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. Superior Court, Etc., 624 P.2d 1264 (Ariz. 1981). · cites it 8× “2d 694 (1966), from which I quote: "This Court has on many occasions held that certiorari tests only the jurisdiction of the tribunal whose order is under review; that is, whether the tribunal had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, and had power to render the…”
Book Cellar, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 678 P.2d 517 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 6× “Appellees (City of Phoenix) argued below and on appeal that Book Cellar's Petition for Special Action failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the statute authorizing certiorari, A.R.S. § 12-2001, does not permit review of a lower tribunal's decision…”
Stant v. City of Maricopa Emp. Merit Bd., 319 P.3d 1002 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “, allows an appeal from a superi- or court’s judgment in an action under our general certiorari statutes, A.R.S. §§ 12-2001 through 12-2007. In Walker v.”
Falcone Bros. & Assocs., Inc. v. City of Tucson, 381 P.3d 276 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “¶ 26 Moreover, to the extent the City believed a special action was available under our general certiorari statute, AR.S. § 12-2001, see Ariz. R. P. Spec. Act.”
State v. Superior Court in & for Cnty. of Maricopa, 390 P.2d 109 (Ariz. 1964). · cites it 4× “2d 1077 ; A.R.S. § 12-2001. At both common law and under a statute similar to A.”
Genda v. Superior Court, Cnty. of Pima, 439 P.2d 811 (Ariz. 1968). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 12-2001 provides: “The writ of certiorari may be granted by the supreme and superior courts or by any judge thereof, in all cases when an inferior tribunal, board or officer, exercising judicial functions, has exceeded its jurisdiction and there is no appeal, nor, in…”
Crouch v. Just. of the Peace Court of the Sixth Precinct, 440 P.2d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 12-2001, is as follows: “Granting of writ “‘The writ of certiorari may be granted by the supreme and superior courts or by any judge thereof, in all cases when an inferior tribunal, board or officer, exercising judicial functions, has exceeded its jurisdiction and…”
Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 870 P.2d 1198 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “Where a statute expressly authorizes proceedings under certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition, the proceedings shall be known as a statutory special action, as distinguished from those applications for writs of certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition, originating under A.”
U.S. Parking Sys. v. City of Phoenix, 772 P.2d 33 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “Our ruling that the board of adjustment and the superior court exceeded their jurisdiction in interpreting the ordinance is in the nature of certiorari under A.R.S. § 12-2001. As A.R.S. § 12-2030 provides for attorney’s fees only in mandamus actions, the request is denied.”
State Ex Rel. Neely v. Rodriguez, 796 P.2d 876 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 2× “See generally A.R.S. §§ 12-2001 to -2029; Arizona Rules of Procedure for Special Actions.”
Show all 46 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2001(8) — 1 case
State v. Miller (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
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.