Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2021 (2026)
Issuance of writ
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A writ of mandamus may be issued by the supreme or superior court to any person, inferior tribunal, corporation or board, though the governor or other state officer is a member thereof, on the verified complaint of the party beneficially interested, to compel, when there is not a plain, adequate and speedy remedy at law, performance of an act which the law specially imposes as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which he is entitled and from which he is unlawfully precluded by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: Sears v. Hull, 961 P.2d 1013 (Ariz. 1998).
Sears v. Hull, 961 P.2d 1013 (Ariz. 1998). “With respect to the standing argument, the court stated that the Sears had standing under A.R.S. § 12-2021, which permits any "beneficially interested" person to sue for mandamus relief.”
Wistuber v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 687 P.2d 354 (Ariz. 1984). “; A.R.S. § 12-2021. There is considerable doubt that the procedure followed is correct.”
Ponderosa Fire Dist. v. Coconino Cnty., 334 P.3d 1256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “2 ¶ 11 Following the hearing, the court issued a writ of mandamus pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2021, requiring the County to issue a resolution calling the bonds.”
Robert Schalkenbach Found. v. Lincoln Found., Inc., 91 P.3d 1019 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “Appellants Do Not Have Standing to Obtain a Writ of Mandamus. ¶ 48 To have standing to obtain a writ of mandamus, Appellants once again ask us to find that they are “interested parties” to the enforcement of the charitable trust.”
Reeves v. Barlow, 251 P.3d 417 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “Instead, they must ultimately persuade the court to conclude, as a matter of law, that the [School District] was required, rather than merely permitted, to employ a definition of “teacher” in structuring participation in the classroom site fund which included them. This court…”
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, 160 P.3d 1216 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “A.R.S. § 12-2021 (2003); Sears v. Hull, 192 Ariz.”
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson, 295 P.3d 943 (Ariz. 2013). “60 (1803) (discussing nature of mandamus); A.R.S. § 12-2021 (authorizing writ of mandamus to compel “performance of an act which the law specially imposes as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station”).”
Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm'n v. Brewer, 275 P.3d 1267 (Ariz. 2012). “6, § 5(1), (6); see also A.R.S. § 12-2021 (empowering this Court to issue a writ of mandamus “to any person .”
Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 870 P.2d 1198 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “A.R.S. §§ 12-2021 through 12-r2030. Moreover, mandamus seeks “to compel .”
U.S. Parking Sys. v. City of Phoenix, 772 P.2d 33 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). “A.R.S. § 12-2021 states “a writ of mandamus may be issued .”
Tucson Cmty. Dev. & Design Ctr., Inc. v. City of Tucson, 641 P.2d 1298 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). “The descriptive words “beneficially interested” were important since they appear in A.R.S. § 12-2021, 1 the statute which provides for the issuance of a writ of mandamus.”
Blankenbaker v. Marks, 299 P.3d 747 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “2007) (citations omitted); see also A.R.S. § 12-2021 (2003). Mandamus is not available unless the public officer is specifically required by law to perform the act.”
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.