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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-541 (2026)

Malicious prosecution; false imprisonment; libel or slander; seduction or breach of promise of marriage; breach of employment contract; wrongful termination; liability created by statute; one year limitation

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

There shall be commenced and prosecuted within one year after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward, the following actions:

1. For malicious prosecution, or for false imprisonment, or for injuries done to the character or reputation of another by libel or slander.

2. For damages for seduction or breach of promise of marriage.

3. For breach of an oral or written employment contract including contract actions based on employee handbooks or policy manuals that do not specify a time period in which to bring an action.

4. For damages for wrongful termination.

5. Upon a liability created by statute, other than a penalty or forfeiture.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 195 cases (61 in the last 5 years), 1960–2026 · leading case: Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C., 183 P.3d 544 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C., 183 P.3d 544 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 57× “bonus compensation,” is “outside the scope of the AEPA and A.R.S. § 12-541 since [it is] not [an] ‘employment contract[ ]’ for a specific term of employment or that otherwise alter[s] or limit[s] the at-will presumption.”
Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Hogue, 360 P.3d 153 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 10× “¶ 17 Hogue moved for summary judgment on the Lanham Act claims, arguing that they were barred by the one-year statute of limitations provided in A.R.S. § 12-541(5). Hogue contended that because the Lanham Act did not provide a limitations period, courts had to apply analogous…”
Alaface v. Nat'l Inv. Co., 892 P.2d 1375 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 10× “A.R.S. § 12-541(3); Murry v. Western Am. Mortgage Co.”
Sparks v. Repub. Nat'l Life Ins., 647 P.2d 1127 (Ariz. 1982). · cites it 4× “Further, no apparent inconsistency was conveyed to the jury since the trial court judge instructed the jury that the defendants had breached their contract with plaintiffs.”
Murdock v. Balle, 696 P.2d 230 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 17× “§ 12-543(3) for actions arising out of fraud is the correct limitation to apply to private actions arising out of the Consumer Fraud Act. We disagree, because the act creates a new liability.”
Day v. LSI Corp., 174 F. Supp. 3d 1130 (D. Ariz. 2016). · cites it 4× “(Day Depo. 170:16-172:7). In Arizona, a claim for a breach of an oral or written employment contract must be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrues.”
Owens v. City of Phoenix, 884 P.2d 1100 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 10× “Initially, in ruling on the summary judgment motion, the trial court appeared to hold that Owens’ cause of action accrued in August 1985, upon receipt of the City’s general “Determination Letter.”
Glaze v. Larsen, 83 P.3d 26 (Ariz. 2004). · cites it 4× “, A.R.S. §§ 12-541 to -544, -546, -548 (2003) (requiring that various actions be commenced within a specified time “after the cause of action accrues”).”
Zuck v. State, 764 P.2d 772 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 8× “§ 12-502, however, did not shorten the statutes of limitation set forth in A.R.S. §§ 12-541 and -542, but rather changed the effect of imprisonment as a disability that tolled those limitations periods.”
Graham Cnty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States Ex Rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409 (2005). · cites it 2× “070 (Lexis 2004) (catchall); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-541 (West 2003) (wrongful termination); Ark.”
Breeser v. Menta Grp., Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (D. Ariz. 2013). · cites it 8× “The statute of limitations to bring a wrongful termination claim under the AÉPA is one year and is found in A.”
Rondelli v. Cnty. of Pima, 586 P.2d 1295 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 8× “He contends that the statute should apply here since the basis of the § 1983 claim is the tortious conduct constituting false imprisonment, abuse of process and the intentional infliction of emotional distress, and that though the limitations period for false imprisonment is one…”
Show all 195 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-541(1) — 32 cases
Dube v. Likins, 167 P.3d 93 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
Breeser v. Menta Grp., Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (D. Ariz. 2013). “The statute of limitations to bring a wrongful termination claim under the AÉPA is one year and is found in A.”
Gee v. Pima Cnty., 612 P.2d 1079 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
Hansen v. Stoll, 636 P.2d 1236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
larue/tucker v. Brown, 333 P.3d 767 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-541(3) — 59 cases
Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C., 183 P.3d 544 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “bonus compensation,” is “outside the scope of the AEPA and A.R.S. § 12-541 since [it is] not [an] ‘employment contract[ ]’ for a specific term of employment or that otherwise alter[s] or limit[s] the at-will presumption.”
Alaface v. Nat'l Inv. Co., 892 P.2d 1375 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “A.R.S. § 12-541(3); Murry v. Western Am. Mortgage Co.”
Sparks v. Repub. Nat'l Life Ins., 647 P.2d 1127 (Ariz. 1982). “Further, no apparent inconsistency was conveyed to the jury since the trial court judge instructed the jury that the defendants had breached their contract with plaintiffs.”
Owens v. City of Phoenix, 884 P.2d 1100 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “Initially, in ruling on the summary judgment motion, the trial court appeared to hold that Owens’ cause of action accrued in August 1985, upon receipt of the City’s general “Determination Letter.”
Murdock v. Balle, 696 P.2d 230 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “§ 12-543(3) for actions arising out of fraud is the correct limitation to apply to private actions arising out of the Consumer Fraud Act. We disagree, because the act creates a new liability.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-541(4) — 8 cases
Cronin v. Sheldon, 991 P.2d 231 (Ariz. 1999).
Breeser v. Menta Grp., Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (D. Ariz. 2013). “The statute of limitations to bring a wrongful termination claim under the AÉPA is one year and is found in A.”
Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C., 183 P.3d 544 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “bonus compensation,” is “outside the scope of the AEPA and A.R.S. § 12-541 since [it is] not [an] ‘employment contract[ ]’ for a specific term of employment or that otherwise alter[s] or limit[s] the at-will presumption.”
United States Ex Rel. Deering v. Physiotherapy Assocs., Inc., 601 F. Supp. 2d 368 (D. Mass. 2009).
Stoica v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co. (D. Ariz. 2020).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-541(5) — 43 cases
Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Hogue, 360 P.3d 153 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “¶ 17 Hogue moved for summary judgment on the Lanham Act claims, arguing that they were barred by the one-year statute of limitations provided in A.R.S. § 12-541(5). Hogue contended that because the Lanham Act did not provide a limitations period, courts had to apply analogous…”
Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C., 183 P.3d 544 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “bonus compensation,” is “outside the scope of the AEPA and A.R.S. § 12-541 since [it is] not [an] ‘employment contract[ ]’ for a specific term of employment or that otherwise alter[s] or limit[s] the at-will presumption.”
Sitton v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 311 P.3d 237 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011).
Steinberger v. McVey, 318 P.3d 419 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-541(A) — 1 case
No Worries v. Marlin Mech. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
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.