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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-411 (2026)

Limitation on changes of venue or judge; selection of county or judge

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

A. Not more than one change of venue or one change of judge may be granted in any action, but each party shall be heard to urge his objections to a county or judge in the first instance.

B. A change of venue or judge shall be to the most convenient county, or judge, to which the objections of the parties do not apply or are least applicable.

C. If the parties agree upon a county or judge, such county or judge shall be selected.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1958–2017 · leading case: Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez, 147 P.3d 755 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez, 147 P.3d 755 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 15× “Code (1901) provided: "In all civil actions in any of the district courts of this territory brought and pending in a county where said county is a party, the opposite party shall be entitled to a change of venue to some other county in the territory without making any affidavit…”
Dunn v. Carruth, 784 P.2d 684 (Ariz. 1989). · cites it 12× “§ 12-411(A) prohibits more than one change of venue per action. We agree with the reasoning of the court of appeals that "a change of venue at the instance of the state [pursuant to current A.”
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Gordon, 144 P.3d 513 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 8× “2d 871 (1968)(county attorney exhausted right to peremptory challenge; citing in addition to other authorities, A.R.S. § 12-411); State v. Carter, 1 Ariz.”
Johnson v. Univ. Hosp., 712 P.2d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 8× “§ 12-824(B) is outside of the restrictions of A.R.S. § 12-411 and does not constitute the single change of venue contemplated by that section.”
Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Lee, 996 P.2d 1248 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 7× “¶ 10 The issue raised here involves a potential conflict between the limitation to one peremptory change of judge in § 12-411 and Rule 42(f)(1)(E), which provides: “When an action is remanded by an appellate court and the opinion or order requires a new trial on one or more…”
Ford Motor Co. v. Superior Court, Etc., 608 P.2d 49 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 4× “§ 12-824(B) is outside of the restrictions of A.R.S. § 12-411 and does not constitute the single change of venue contemplated by that section.”
Reilly v. Super. Ct. in & for Maricopa Cty., 687 P.2d 1295 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “The Reillys also initially argued that Levy had failed to timely file a controverting affidavit in response to their motion, and that the trial court Was therefore required to grant a transfer of venue pursuant to A.”
Am. Buyers Life Ins. v. Superior Court, 329 P.2d 1100 (Ariz. 1958). · cites it 2× “Section 12-411, A.R.S., reads as follows: “A.”
Sharper Image Corp. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 957 P.2d 1369 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “¶ 17 The same is true of the scope of Connecticut’s taxing provision itself. The Connecticut use tax statute imposed the tax on the purchase price of property acquired for “storage, acceptance, consumption or any other use” in the state.”
Yarbrough v. Roberts Enter., Dewitt, Avator Holdings (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 16× “Because § 12-411 encompasses both changes of venue and changes of judge, the topics addressed in §§ 12-408 through 12-410, we conclude § 12-411 applies to all three statutes.”
State Ex Rel. Riley v. Collins, 435 P.2d 871 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 2× “2d 191 (1965), Rule 198, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., § 12-411 A.R.S. DID THE COUNTY ATTORNEY CARRY HIS BURDEN OF SHOWING ACTUAL BIAS AND PREJUDICE? The rules pertaining to change of judge are essentially the same in civil as in criminal cases.”
Richert v. Buck (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 12-411(L). In determining whether adequate cause exists, the court conducts an in-camera screening of the petition and supporting affidavits; no hearing is required at the screening stage.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-411(1) — 1 case
Sharper Image Corp. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 957 P.2d 1369 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “¶ 17 The same is true of the scope of Connecticut’s taxing provision itself. The Connecticut use tax statute imposed the tax on the purchase price of property acquired for “storage, acceptance, consumption or any other use” in the state.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-411(A) — 7 cases
Dunn v. Carruth, 784 P.2d 684 (Ariz. 1989). “§ 12-411(A) prohibits more than one change of venue per action. We agree with the reasoning of the court of appeals that "a change of venue at the instance of the state [pursuant to current A.”
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Gordon, 144 P.3d 513 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “2d 871 (1968)(county attorney exhausted right to peremptory challenge; citing in addition to other authorities, A.R.S. § 12-411); State v. Carter, 1 Ariz.”
Johnson v. Univ. Hosp., 712 P.2d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “§ 12-824(B) is outside of the restrictions of A.R.S. § 12-411 and does not constitute the single change of venue contemplated by that section.”
Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Lee, 996 P.2d 1248 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “¶ 10 The issue raised here involves a potential conflict between the limitation to one peremptory change of judge in § 12-411 and Rule 42(f)(1)(E), which provides: “When an action is remanded by an appellate court and the opinion or order requires a new trial on one or more…”
Ford Motor Co. v. Superior Court, Etc., 608 P.2d 49 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). “§ 12-824(B) is outside of the restrictions of A.R.S. § 12-411 and does not constitute the single change of venue contemplated by that section.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-411(B) — 2 cases
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez, 147 P.3d 755 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “Code (1901) provided: "In all civil actions in any of the district courts of this territory brought and pending in a county where said county is a party, the opposite party shall be entitled to a change of venue to some other county in the territory without making any affidavit…”
Yarbrough v. Roberts Enter., Dewitt, Avator Holdings (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “Because § 12-411 encompasses both changes of venue and changes of judge, the topics addressed in §§ 12-408 through 12-410, we conclude § 12-411 applies to all three statutes.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-411(L) — 1 case
Richert v. Buck (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “” A.R.S. § 12-411(L). In determining whether adequate cause exists, the court conducts an in-camera screening of the petition and supporting affidavits; no hearing is required at the screening stage.”
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.