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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-529 (2026)

Defenses available for certain actions by the state or person claiming through the state

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

Any action brought by this state or any person claiming through this state for lands, or for the rents or profits from lands, based on a claim of navigability of any watercourse, as defined in section 37-1101, except the Colorado river, is subject to all legal and equitable defenses which would be available if the claimant were not this state or a private person or political subdivision of this state claiming through this state.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Elec., Inc., 393 P.3d 919 (Ariz. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Elec., Inc., 393 P.3d 919 (Ariz. 2017). · cites it 5× “shall apply to actions brought in the name of the State”’); see also AR.S. § 12-529 (stating that “any action brought by this state .”
Tucson Unified Sch. Dist. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 849 P.2d 790 (Ariz. 1993). · cites it 9× “Owens also argues that the language of another statute, A.R.S. § 12-529, 1 independently shows that the legislature did not intend to include political subdivisions of the state, and hence school districts, within the coverage of A.”
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Elec., Inc., 375 P.3d 1189 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “§ 12-510, which states: “Except as provided in A.R.S. § 12-529, the state shall not be barred by the limitations of actions prescribed in this chapter.”
Warfield v. Alaniz, 453 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2006). “§ 12-510 (“Except as provided in § 12-529, the state shall not be barred by the limitations of actions prescribed in this chapter”) (emphasis added).”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Health Servs. v. Cochise Cnty., 800 P.2d 578 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 2× “The state has not disputed this fact on review, and has not argued that it presented a demand in compliance with A.”
Sussex v. Tempe (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “§ 12-510 states that “[e]xcept as provided in § 12-529, the state shall not be 2 According to the City, it actually acquired the Property in two segments — in 2002 and 2005, respectively.”
Chandler v. Roosevelt (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 12-510, which provides that “[e]xcept as provided in § 12-529, the state shall not be barred by the limitations of actions prescribed in [Title 12, Chapter 5].”
Chandler v. Roosevelt (Ariz. 2026). “”); § 12-529 (providing that certain claims by the state are “subject to all legal and equitable defenses which would be available if the claimant were not this state”); § 14-3803(A)(1)-(2) (“All claims against a decedent’s estate that arose before the death of the decedent,…”
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.