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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2041 (2026)

Action by attorney general; venue

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

A. An action may be brought in the supreme court by the attorney general in the name of the state upon his relation, upon his own information or upon the verified complaint of any person, in cases where the supreme court has jurisdiction, or otherwise in the superior court of the county which has jurisdiction, against any person who usurps, intrudes into or unlawfully holds or exercises any public office or any franchise within this state.

B. The attorney general shall bring the action when he has reason to believe that any such office or franchise is being usurped, intruded into or unlawfully held or exercised.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1960–2025 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Woods v. Block, 942 P.2d 428 (Ariz. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Block, 942 P.2d 428 (Ariz. 1997). · cites it 30× “In response, the Attorney General contends that he has standing under three separate theories: his obligation to uphold the Arizona Constitution, and two statutory grounds—A.R.S. § 12-2041 (action in quo warranto), and A.”
Jennings v. Woods, 982 P.2d 274 (Ariz. 1999). · cites it 10× “A.R.S. § 12-2041, dating to Arizona's Civil Code of 1913, is our quo warranto statute authorizing the attorney general to bring the action in the name of the state.”
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Comm'n, 132 P.3d 1187 (Ariz. 2006). · cites it 2× “On October 20, 2005, sixteen days after the Commission denied Smith’s request for a rehearing, after the time for filing a complaint for judicial review of the Commission’s final administrative decision *416 had run, the Attorney General filed a petition for a writ of quo…”
State Ex Rel. Sawyer v. LaSota, 580 P.2d 714 (Ariz. 1978). · cites it 7× “” They allege that respondent LaSota had not been before taking office a practicing attorney for five years before the Supreme Court of the State, in that during the years 1973 and 1974 respondent was employed at the Arizona State University School of Law and during those years…”
Laos v. Arnold, 685 P.2d 111 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 6× “We hold that A.R.S. § 12-2041, existing at the time art.”
Arizona State Land Dep't v. McFate, 348 P.2d 912 (Ariz. 1960). · cites it 4× “Thus, for example, under A.R.S. § 12-2041, the Attorney General may commence a quo warranto action “in the name of the state upon his relation, upon his own information * * * against any person who usurps, intrudes into or unlawfully holds or exercises any public office or any…”
Uhlmann v. Wren, 401 P.2d 113 (Ariz. 1965). · cites it 4× “" The gravamen of petitioners' complaint against the Salt River Project, though couched in terms of ultra vires, is that the Salt River Project has, without any authority, usurped a franchise to act as a public service corporation in the service area which it has carved out for…”
Donaghey v. Attorney Gen., 584 P.2d 557 (Ariz. 1978). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-2041(A). While the language of the provision appears to limit quo warranto jurisdiction to cases where the right of a person to hold office is being challenged, we have held that an action in quo warranto is the procedurally proper mode for challenging a municipal…”
Crouch v. City of Tucson, 699 P.2d 1296 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “A.R.S. § 12-2041 provides: “A. An action may be brought in the supreme court by the attorney general in the name of the state upon his relation, upon his own information or upon the verified complaint of any person, in cases where the supreme court has jurisdiction, or otherwise…”
Pacion v. Thomas, 236 P.3d 395 (Ariz. 2010). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 12-2041 (2003) (authorizing attorney general to bring action against any person unlawfully holding public office); Op.”
Town of Scottsdale v. State ex rel. Pickrell, 405 P.2d 871 (Ariz. 1965). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-2041 (1956). Judgment whs rendered in the trial court in favor of the state, from which the appellant perfected this appeal.”
City of Bisbee v. Arizona Water Co., 153 P.3d 389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “As noted earlier, the City’s complaint included both a quo warranto claim and a request for declaratory relief. AWC contended both here and in its objection below to the City’s petition to file a quo warranto action that the Ci1y lacked standing to pursue such a claim.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2041(A) — 5 cases
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Block, 942 P.2d 428 (Ariz. 1997). “In response, the Attorney General contends that he has standing under three separate theories: his obligation to uphold the Arizona Constitution, and two statutory grounds—A.R.S. § 12-2041 (action in quo warranto), and A.”
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Comm'n, 132 P.3d 1187 (Ariz. 2006). “On October 20, 2005, sixteen days after the Commission denied Smith’s request for a rehearing, after the time for filing a complaint for judicial review of the Commission’s final administrative decision *416 had run, the Attorney General filed a petition for a writ of quo…”
Donaghey v. Attorney Gen., 584 P.2d 557 (Ariz. 1978). “A.R.S. § 12-2041(A). While the language of the provision appears to limit quo warranto jurisdiction to cases where the right of a person to hold office is being challenged, we have held that an action in quo warranto is the procedurally proper mode for challenging a municipal…”
State of Arizona v. Az Bd. of Regents (Ariz. 2022).
David B Smith v. Clean elections/hon Terry Goddard (Ariz. 2006).
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.