A. In counties having three or more superior court judges, the presiding judge may appoint court commissioners to serve at his pleasure who shall have such powers and duties as shall be provided by statute or by rule of the supreme court, save and except such commissioners are expressly prohibited, except in default hearings, from making any ex parte orders which would deprive any person or persons from custody of their child or children, or change of counsel of attorneys, or deprive any person of the person's liberty, or deprive any person or entity from the person's or entity's property or the use thereof, or any injunctive relief.
B. Commissioners appointed under subsection A shall receive an annual salary set by the presiding judge which may not exceed ninety per cent of the salary of a judge of the superior court. The commissioner's salary shall be a county charge. An appointed commissioner shall be admitted to the practice of law in and a resident of this state for five years next preceding taking office.
Notes of Decisions
Harris v. Maricopa Cnty. Superior Court, 631 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 2× “See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 12-213. In late 2000 or early 2001, allegations were made that Harris had engaged in inappropriate conduct towards female staff members, had asked his secretary to perform personal errands for him, and had performed his own duties inadequately.”
McElhanon v. Hing, 728 P.2d 256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “McElhanon’s claim that his ex parte communication with the judge was authorized by law is entirely without merit for not only was it not authorized, it totally destroyed the sanctity of a fair trial.”
Green v. Thompson, 499 P.2d 715 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 6× “” A.R.S. § 12-213 further provides for the appointment of court commissioners: “A.”
Hull v. Williams (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 6× “Father also argues his due process rights were violated when he requested review by “an elected judge under A.R.S. § 12-213 . . . but the matter remained before a commissioner.”
Harvey v. Borbon (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “”); A.R.S. § 12-213(A) (“In counties having three or more superior court judges, the presiding judge may appoint court commissioners .”
Vernon Harris v. Maricopa Cnty. Superior Court (9th Cir. 2011).
“See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-213 . In late 2000 or early 2001, allegations were made that Harris had engaged in inappropriate conduct towards female staff members, had asked his secretary to per- form personal errands for him, and had performed his own duties inadequately.”
Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 935 P.2d 906 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
“Therefore, when, in defining “fiscal year,” General Statutes § 12-213 uses the phrase “in accordance with the provisions of the internal revenue code,” it is logical to assume that the legislature intended to adopt all provisions of the code pertinent to the effective use of the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-213(A) — 2 cases
McElhanon v. Hing, 728 P.2d 256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“McElhanon’s claim that his ex parte communication with the judge was authorized by law is entirely without merit for not only was it not authorized, it totally destroyed the sanctity of a fair trial.”
Harvey v. Borbon (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
“”); A.R.S. § 12-213(A) (“In counties having three or more superior court judges, the presiding judge may appoint court commissioners .”
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.