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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-505 (2026)

Effect of statute changing limitation

✓ 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 barred by pre-existing law is not revived by amendment of such law enlarging the time in which such action may be commenced.

B. If an action is not barred by pre-existing law, the time fixed in an amendment of such law shall govern the limitation of the action.

C. If an amendment of pre-existing law shortens the time of limitation fixed in the pre-existing law so that an action under pre-existing law would be barred when the amendment takes effect, such action may be brought within one year from the time the new law takes effect, and not afterward.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2023 · leading case: City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 105 P.3d 1163 (Ariz. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 105 P.3d 1163 (Ariz. 2005). · cites it 121× “¶8 We granted the City’s petition for review to address the retroactivity issues in light of A.R.S. § 12-505, which governs the effect of laws changing statutes of limitations.”
Corbett v. Manorcare of Am., Inc., 146 P.3d 1027 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 11× “5, quoting § 12-505(B). The district court reasoned that, because the amended statute became effective on September 18, 2003, and the subsidiaries had not been dismissed until April 14, 2004, her action was not time barred when the amendment took effect.”
Zuck v. State, 764 P.2d 772 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 16× “By its terms, A.R.S. § 12-505 applies only when a new law “shortens the time of limitation fixed in the preexisting law.”
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 78 P.3d 1056 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 14× “02(C) is subject to the provisions of A.R.S. § 12-505 and case law limiting the retroactive application of statutes of limitations.”
Landgraff v. Wagner, 546 P.2d 26 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 6× “It follows, of course, that the one-year salvage period of A.R.S. § 12-505 (C), quoted earlier, never takes effect because A.”
Cronin v. Sheldon, 991 P.2d 231 (Ariz. 1999). · cites it 4× “Denny’s argues, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-505(C) (1992), 1 that the *535 shorter period applies to bar Cronin’s wrongful termination action and urges this court to' dispose of the action now, to avoid the futility of returning Cronin’s claims to the trial court to produce the same…”
Chevron Chem. Co. v. Superior Court, 641 P.2d 1275 (Ariz. 1982). · cites it 3× “2176 is invalid as a special law in violation of Article 4, Part 2, Section 19 of the Arizona Constitution because it creates a special class of litigant immune from A.R.S. § 12-505. We believe that Eastin v.”
Flood Control Dist. v. Gaines, 43 P.3d 196 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “…RPIs had until July 17, 1995—one year after the effective date of the current statute—to commence their action. See A.R.S. § 12-505(B), (C) (1992).”
Mayer Unified Sch. Dist. v. Winkleman, 201 P.3d 523 (Ariz. 2009). · cites it 4× “§ 12-821 (1992) (repealed 1993) (twelve month statute of limitations for claims against a public entity); § 12-550 (1956) (four year general limitations period when no limitation is otherwise prescribed).”
Est. of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc., 128 P.3d 234 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “§ 46-455(1); see also A.R.S. § 12-505(C) (2003). . A "claim” includes "liabilities of the estate that arise at or after the death of the decedent.”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Munoz, 224 P.3d 250 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “The most logical reading of § 12-505 is one that makes it applicable to the entire universe of unfiled claims allegedly affected by new or amended statutes of limitation.”
Hershey v. Rich Rosen Constr. Co., 817 P.2d 55 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Although this statute cannot apply retroactively to bar plaintiffs suit, see A.R.S. § 12-505(C), defendant urges us to adopt the eight-to-nine year time frame expressed in that enactment as a standard of "reasonable time” in which to discover a defect and bring suit against the…”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-505(A) — 2 cases
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 105 P.3d 1163 (Ariz. 2005). “¶8 We granted the City’s petition for review to address the retroactivity issues in light of A.R.S. § 12-505, which governs the effect of laws changing statutes of limitations.”
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 78 P.3d 1056 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “02(C) is subject to the provisions of A.R.S. § 12-505 and case law limiting the retroactive application of statutes of limitations.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-505(B) — 10 cases
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 105 P.3d 1163 (Ariz. 2005). “¶8 We granted the City’s petition for review to address the retroactivity issues in light of A.R.S. § 12-505, which governs the effect of laws changing statutes of limitations.”
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 78 P.3d 1056 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “02(C) is subject to the provisions of A.R.S. § 12-505 and case law limiting the retroactive application of statutes of limitations.”
Zuck v. State, 764 P.2d 772 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “By its terms, A.R.S. § 12-505 applies only when a new law “shortens the time of limitation fixed in the preexisting law.”
Flood Control Dist. v. Gaines, 43 P.3d 196 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “…RPIs had until July 17, 1995—one year after the effective date of the current statute—to commence their action. See A.R.S. § 12-505(B), (C) (1992).”
Mayer Unified Sch. Dist. v. Winkleman, 201 P.3d 523 (Ariz. 2009). “§ 12-821 (1992) (repealed 1993) (twelve month statute of limitations for claims against a public entity); § 12-550 (1956) (four year general limitations period when no limitation is otherwise prescribed).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-505(C) — 9 cases
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 105 P.3d 1163 (Ariz. 2005). “¶8 We granted the City’s petition for review to address the retroactivity issues in light of A.R.S. § 12-505, which governs the effect of laws changing statutes of limitations.”
Corbett v. Manorcare of Am., Inc., 146 P.3d 1027 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “5, quoting § 12-505(B). The district court reasoned that, because the amended statute became effective on September 18, 2003, and the subsidiaries had not been dismissed until April 14, 2004, her action was not time barred when the amendment took effect.”
Cronin v. Sheldon, 991 P.2d 231 (Ariz. 1999). “Denny’s argues, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-505(C) (1992), 1 that the *535 shorter period applies to bar Cronin’s wrongful termination action and urges this court to' dispose of the action now, to avoid the futility of returning Cronin’s claims to the trial court to produce the same…”
Zuck v. State, 764 P.2d 772 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “By its terms, A.R.S. § 12-505 applies only when a new law “shortens the time of limitation fixed in the preexisting law.”
Landgraff v. Wagner, 546 P.2d 26 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). “It follows, of course, that the one-year salvage period of A.R.S. § 12-505 (C), quoted earlier, never takes effect because 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.