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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-502 (2026)

Effect of minority or insanity

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

If a person entitled to bring an action other than those set forth in article 2 of this chapter is at the time the cause of action accrues either under eighteen years of age or of unsound mind, the period of such disability shall not be deemed a portion of the period limited for commencement of the action. Such person shall have the same time after removal of the disability which is allowed to others.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 79 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: Florez v. Sargeant, 917 P.2d 250 (Ariz. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Florez v. Sargeant, 917 P.2d 250 (Ariz. 1996). · cites it 24× “Gomez moved for summary judgment on the statute of limitations defense arguing that it was tolled because (1) he was of unsound mind within the meaning of A.R.S. § 12-502, (2) he was under duress, (3) his memory was repressed, and (4) he did not connect the sexual abuse to his…”
Doe v. Roe, 955 P.2d 951 (Ariz. 1998). · cites it 18× “A.R.S. § 12-502. Plaintiff did not file her claim within two years from that date and advanced three grounds in support of her claim as timely filed: (1) her parents are estopped from asserting the statute of limitations, (2) her cause of action did not accrue under the…”
Sahf v. Lake Havasu City Ass'n for the Retarded & Handicapped, 721 P.2d 1177 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 29× “Sahf also argued that any statute of limitations had been tolled pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-502 because Scrabeck was an incapacitated person.”
Barrio v. San Manuel Div. Hosp. for Magma Copper Co., 692 P.2d 280 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 14× “The filing was timely under Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 12-502, the general tolling statute that covers the effect of minority, insanity or imprisonment on the time allowed for bringing any personal in *103 jury action; it was, however, barred under Ariz.”
Vega v. Morris, 910 P.2d 6 (Ariz. 1996). · cites it 24× “§ 12-502(B) has provided that: If a person entitled to bring an action ... is at the time the cause of action accrues imprisoned, the period of such disability shall exist only until such time as the person imprisoned discovers the right to bring the action or with the exercise…”
Zuck v. State, 764 P.2d 772 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 17× “e was switched to another family of medicine; into the fall and winter, affiant did not always get from the prison staff his prescribed medicine; he had to constantly, petition the department to get the prescription renewed or refilled____ After considering the motions, the…”
Dugan v. Fujitsu Bus. Commc'ns Sys., Inc., 937 P.2d 706 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 24× “Before the trial court, defendant admitted that "a question of fact exists as to whether Sarah Dugan is of 'unsound mind’ within the meaning of § 12-502.” Defendant may not now defend its summary judgment on a basis that was not argued below.”
Est. of Desela v. Prescott Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1, 249 P.3d 767 (Ariz. 2011). · cites it 13× “See A.R.S. § 12-502 (2010) (providing that minor or person of unsound mind “shall have the same time after removal of the disability which is allowed to others” to file suit).”
Logerquist v. Danforth, 932 P.2d 281 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 8× “A.R.S. § 12-502(A). Thus, unless the statute of limitations was tolled or otherwise extended, plaintiff was required to file suit by no later than August 27, 1982.”
Cecala v. Newman, 532 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2007). · cites it 7× ““Unsound Mind” Tolling Does Not Apply Cecala submits that her non-litigation claims are tolled by A.R.S. § 12-502, which provides, “If a person entitled to bring an action .”
Porter v. Triad of Arizona (L.P.), 52 P.3d 799 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 15× “However, A.R.S. § 12-502 (1992), the minority tolling statute, provided that the running of a limitations statute was tolled for the claim of a minor during the period of minority, with an exception not applicable here.”
Kenyon v. Hammer, 688 P.2d 961 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 4× “§ 12-501) or where the person entitled to bring the action was a minor, of unsound mind or imprisoned at the time of accrual (A.R.S. § 12-502). Presumably, A.R.S. § 12-564 renders these provisions inapplicable to those who assert a claim against a licensed health care provider.”
Show all 79 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-502(A) — 9 cases
Florez v. Sargeant, 917 P.2d 250 (Ariz. 1996). “Gomez moved for summary judgment on the statute of limitations defense arguing that it was tolled because (1) he was of unsound mind within the meaning of A.R.S. § 12-502, (2) he was under duress, (3) his memory was repressed, and (4) he did not connect the sexual abuse to his…”
Logerquist v. Danforth, 932 P.2d 281 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “A.R.S. § 12-502(A). Thus, unless the statute of limitations was tolled or otherwise extended, plaintiff was required to file suit by no later than August 27, 1982.”
Doe v. Roe, 931 P.2d 1115 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, 927 P.2d 796 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
Doe v. Roe, 955 P.2d 951 (Ariz. 1998). “A.R.S. § 12-502. Plaintiff did not file her claim within two years from that date and advanced three grounds in support of her claim as timely filed: (1) her parents are estopped from asserting the statute of limitations, (2) her cause of action did not accrue under the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-502(B) — 5 cases
Vega v. Morris, 910 P.2d 6 (Ariz. 1996). “§ 12-502(B) has provided that: If a person entitled to bring an action ... is at the time the cause of action accrues imprisoned, the period of such disability shall exist only until such time as the person imprisoned discovers the right to bring the action or with the exercise…”
Zuck v. State, 764 P.2d 772 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “e was switched to another family of medicine; into the fall and winter, affiant did not always get from the prison staff his prescribed medicine; he had to constantly, petition the department to get the prescription renewed or refilled____ After considering the motions, the…”
Vega v. Morris, 905 P.2d 535 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
Chester Marks v. Jerry Parra, 785 F.2d 1419 (9th Cir. 1986).
Jimenez v. Lewis, 862 P.2d 906 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-502(b) — 1 case
Lawrence J. Krug v. Vince Imbordino Rufino Dominguez Arthur Hanratty Maricopa Cnty., Az James Martin Garth Smith State of Arizona, 896 F.2d 395 (9th Cir. 1990).
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.