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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2044 (2026)

Adjudication of office; damages; several claimants

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

A. When the action involves the right to an office, the complaint shall show the one who is entitled to the office, and the issues made thereon shall be tried. The judgment given shall adjudge who is entitled to the office. If judgment is given awarding the right to the office to the person alleged to be entitled thereto, he may recover the damages which he has sustained by reason of the usurpation of the office by defendant.

B. When several persons claim the same office or franchise, one action may be brought against all such persons to try their rights to the office or franchise.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · 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 4× “Under A.R.S. § 12-2044, a judgment in quo warranto must show who is entitled to the office.”
City Ctr. Exec. Plaza, LLC v. Jantzen, 344 P.3d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “1985) (rejecting claim that attorneys’ fees were damages pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2044). We see no reason to diverge from the general rule here.”
Proctor v. Parada, 700 P.2d 901 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 5× “Damages under the predecessor to A.R.S. § 12-2044 were awarded for lost salary while the prevailing party was out of office.”
Chula Vista Homeowners Ass'n v. Irwin, 426 P.3d 1228 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “1985) (attorney fees not damages in quo warranto action pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2044 and may not be awarded in absence of statutory authority).”
We the People Ex Rel. v. Governor Doug Ducey (Ariz. 2021). · cites it 2× “Petitioners do not assert that they ran for the offices they challenge or are otherwise entitled to the office each seeks under A.R.S. § 12-2044, but instead offer that “[a]ny Arizona resident meeting the minimum qualifications is entitled to and has the right to be appointed to…”
State of Arizona v. Az Bd. of Regents (Ariz. 2022). · cites it 2× “Similarly, A.R.S. § 12-2044, which delineates the pleading requirements and remedial damages available when the quo warranto “action involves the right to an office,” necessarily implies that actions under § 12-2041(A) must also lie for reasons other than challenges to a…”
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.