Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-510 (2026)
Exemption of state from limitations
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Except as provided in section 12-529, the state shall not be barred by the limitations of actions prescribed in this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Elec., Inc., 393 P.3d 919 (Ariz. 2017).
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Elec., Inc., 393 P.3d 919 (Ariz. 2017). “VICE CHIEF JUSTICE PELANDER, opinion of the Court: ¶ 1 Under A.R.S. § 12-510, claims by governmental entities generally are not barred by statutes of limitations.”
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 105 P.3d 1163 (Ariz. 2005). “See A.R.S. § 12-510 8 (2003) (providing that “the state shall not be barred by the limitations of actions prescribed in this chapter”); Tucson Unified Sch.”
Tucson Unified Sch. Dist. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 849 P.2d 790 (Ariz. 1993). “The federal court granted TUSD’s motion, holding that A.R.S. § 12-510 exempts TUSD from the statute of limitations.”
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Elec., Inc., 375 P.3d 1189 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “This doctrine has been codified by A.R.S. § 12-510, which states: “Except as provided in A.”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Health Servs. v. Cochise Cnty., 800 P.2d 578 (Ariz. 1990). “§ 11-630, because of the provisions of A.R.S. § 12-510. [3] The dissent would have affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in the state's favor.”
Warfield v. Gardner, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (D. Ariz. 2004). “Specifically, the Arizona Supreme Court addressed, “whether ‘A.R.S. § 12-510’, which exempts the state from being barred by the statutes of limitations prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 5 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, preventfs] the dismissal of a conversion claim brought by…”
Grim v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 740 P.2d 487 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “Grim argues that the source of payment is important because of A.R.S. § 12-510. A.R.S. § 12-510 provides that "[t]he state shall not be barred by the limitations of actions prescribed in this chapter.”
Arizona Ctr. for Law in the Pub. Interest v. Hassell, 837 P.2d 158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “2017’s enactment of Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 12-510, 12-529, 37-1102, 37-1103, and the first sentence of 37-1107.”
Diamond Benefits Life Ins. v. Resolute Holdings, Inc., 907 P.2d 63 (Ariz. 1995). “QUESTION PRESENTED AND ANSWER The question of state law which the district court has certified is whether “A.R.S. § 12-510, which exempts the state from being barred by the statutes of limitations prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 5 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, prevent[s] the…”
Warfield v. Alaniz, 453 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2006). “2004) (holding that the statute of limitations for state-law cause of action for conversion does not apply to a claim brought by a court-appointed receiver); accord A.R.S. § 12-510 (“Except as provided in § 12-529, the state shall not be barred by the limitations of actions…”
Peters v. M & O Constr., Inc., 579 P.2d 72 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). “Plaintiff argues that the court erred in applying the two year statute of limitations of ARS § 12-542 rather than that of ARS *37 § 12-510. This latter section, however, provides that the state shall not be barred by the limitation of certain actions.”
State ex rel. State Cmty. Coll. Bd. v. Sergent, Hauskins & Beckwith, Inc., 556 P.2d 23 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). “The issue determining both appeals is whether appellant/plaintiffs, the State Community College Board and the Cochise College District Governing Board qualify as the “state” in order to nullify the defense of the statute of limitations under the provisions of ARS § 12-510, which…”
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.