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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-507 (2026)

Action against person removing to this state

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

No demand against a person who removes to this state, incurred prior to his removal, shall be barred by the statute of limitation until he has resided in this state one year, unless barred at the time of his removal to this state by the laws of the state or country from which he migrated.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1985–2019 · leading case: Monroe v. Wood, 724 P.2d 30 (Ariz. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Monroe v. Wood, 724 P.2d 30 (Ariz. 1986). · cites it 9× “Action against person removing to this state No demand against a person who removes to this state, incurred prior to his removal, shall be barred by the statute of limitation until he has resided in this state one year, unless barred at the time of his removal to this state by…”
Bailey v. Superior Court, 694 P.2d 324 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 5× “Further, the court was not required to consider the applicability of § 12-507, which was also in effect at that time and which we believe to be dispositive of this case.”
DeLoach v. Alfred, 952 P.2d 320 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “Monroe , involved application of A.R.S. § 12-507, Arizona’s borrowing statute.”
Monroe v. Wood, 724 P.2d 38 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 11× “§ 12-507 provides as follows: “No demand against a person who removes to this state, incurred prior to his removal, shall be barred by the statute of limitation until he has resided in this state one year, unless barred at the time of his removal to this state by the laws of the…”
Hosogai v. Kadota, 700 P.2d 1327 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 4× “§ 12-502 (action tolled during minority, insanity, and under some circumstances, the imprisonment of the plaintiff); A.R.S. § 12-507 (action tolled for persons removing to this state); A.”
Ianni v. St. Just (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 12-507.[2] For this reason, if Ms.”
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.