Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542 (2026)

Injury to person; injury when death ensues; injury to property; conversion of property; forcible entry and forcible detainer; two year limitation

✓ 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 12-551 there shall be commenced and prosecuted within two years after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward, the following actions:

1. For injuries done to the person of another including causes of action for medical malpractice as defined in section 12-561.

2. For injuries done to the person of another when death ensues from such injuries, which action shall be considered as accruing at the death of the party injured.

3. For trespass for injury done to the estate or the property of another.

4. For taking or carrying away the goods and chattels of another.

5. For detaining the personal property of another and for converting such property to one's own use.

6. For forcible entry or forcible detainer, which action shall be considered as accruing at the commencement of the forcible entry or detainer.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 481 cases (120 in the last 5 years), 1961–2026 · leading case: Landgraff v. Wagner, 546 P.2d 26 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Landgraff v. Wagner, 546 P.2d 26 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 40× “§ 12-505(C) which states: 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…”

Kenyon v. Hammer, 688 P.2d 961 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 20× “Acknowledging that A.R.S. § 12-542 is the general statute of limitations applicable to wrongful death claims, defendant argues, nevertheless, that all medical malpractice claims, whether for injury or death, are governed by the specific provisions of A.”

Anson v. Am. Motors Corp., 747 P.2d 581 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 29× “” In cases involving that and other sections of A.R.S. § 12-542, the term has been held as a matter of judicial construction to embody the so-called “discovery rule.”

Sahf v. Lake Havasu City Ass'n for the Retarded & Handicapped, 721 P.2d 1177 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 18× “Lake Havasu filed a motion to dismiss on grounds that the action was barred by A.R.S. § 12-542, the two-year statute of limitations for ordinary negligence.”

Madden-Tyler v. Maricopa Cnty., 943 P.2d 822 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 26× “Appellant therefore argues that the two-year statute of limitations in A.R.S. § 12-542 should apply to her Rehabilitation Act claim because it is the most analogous state statute of limitations.”

Walk v. Ring, 44 P.3d 990 (Ariz. 2002). · cites it 8× “See A.R.S. § 12-542. 2 The trial judge granted this motion, and the court of appeals affirmed.”

Glaze v. Larsen, 83 P.3d 26 (Ariz. 2004). · cites it 10× “¶ 5 On December 14, 2000, Glaze filed suit against Larsen, alleging that Larsen’s negligence had caused the criminal conviction.”

Crook v. Anderson, 565 P.2d 908 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 16× “The complaint itself was filed in February of 1975, almost four years after the money alleged in the complaint was due. The appellees' position below, with which the trial court apparently agreed, was that since the complaint in essence set forth an action in the nature of…”

Florez v. Sargeant, 917 P.2d 250 (Ariz. 1996). · cites it 10× “He also informed Gomez of the two year statute of limitations under A.R.S. § 12-542 and that it was the position of the Diocese that the statute had run.”

Carrington Mortg. Servs. LLC v. Woods, 397 P.3d 1055 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 10× “Section 12-542(6) also states a cause of action for forcible detainer accrues “at the commencement of the forcible entry or detainer.”

Cecala v. Newman, 532 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2007). · cites it 9× “) Newman urges the court to dismiss “all claims, however denominated,” for failure to comply with A.R.S. § 12-542. (Id. at 7.) However, Cecala’s litigation malpractice claims were timely filed pursuant to an exception to that limitations period.”

Hall v. Romero, 685 P.2d 757 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 10× “Romero filed a motion for summary judgment, on the grounds that the plaintiffs’ suit was barred by the statute of limitations, A.R.S. § 12-542, and that Romero owed no legal duty to the plaintiffs upon which he could be held liable.”

Show all 481 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542(1) — 68 cases

Madden-Tyler v. Maricopa Cnty., 943 P.2d 822 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). “Appellant therefore argues that the two-year statute of limitations in A.R.S. § 12-542 should apply to her Rehabilitation Act claim because it is the most analogous state statute of limitations.”

Zuck v. State, 764 P.2d 772 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).

Dunlap v. City of Phoenix, 817 P.2d 8 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).

Janson v. Christensen, 808 P.2d 1222 (Ariz. 1991).

Anson v. Am. Motors Corp., 747 P.2d 581 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “” In cases involving that and other sections of A.R.S. § 12-542, the term has been held as a matter of judicial construction to embody the so-called “discovery rule.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542(2) — 15 cases

Kenyon v. Hammer, 688 P.2d 961 (Ariz. 1984). “Acknowledging that A.R.S. § 12-542 is the general statute of limitations applicable to wrongful death claims, defendant argues, nevertheless, that all medical malpractice claims, whether for injury or death, are governed by the specific provisions of A.”

Murdock v. Balle, 696 P.2d 230 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).

Lawhon v. L.B.J. Institutional Supply, Inc., 765 P.2d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).

Ruth Davis, Individually & as Special Adm'r for the Est. of James R. Davis v. Dow Chem. Corp., a Delaware Corp., 819 F.2d 231 (9th Cir. 1987).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542(3) — 17 cases

Ranch Realty, Inc. v. Dc Ranch Realty, LLC, 614 F. Supp. 2d 983 (D. Ariz. 2007).

RANCH 57 v. City of Yuma, 731 P.2d 113 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).

Hall v. Romero, 685 P.2d 757 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). “Romero filed a motion for summary judgment, on the grounds that the plaintiffs’ suit was barred by the statute of limitations, A.R.S. § 12-542, and that Romero owed no legal duty to the plaintiffs upon which he could be held liable.”

Gee v. Pima Cnty., 612 P.2d 1079 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).

KnightBrook Ins. v. Payless Car Rental Sys., Inc., 43 F. Supp. 3d 965 (D. Ariz. 2014).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542(4) — 1 case

Murdock v. Balle, 696 P.2d 230 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542(5) — 7 cases

Est. of Kirschenbaum v. Kirschenbaum, 793 P.2d 1102 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).

Tissicino v. Peterson, 121 P.3d 1286 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).

Richardson v. Hidy Honda, Inc. (In Re Richardson), 221 B.R. 956 (D. Wyo. 1998).

Stebbins v. Sullivan (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).

Andrich v. Meyers (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542(6) — 3 cases

Carrington Mortg. Servs. LLC v. Woods, 397 P.3d 1055 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “Section 12-542(6) also states a cause of action for forcible detainer accrues “at the commencement of the forcible entry or detainer.”

Reeves v. City of Phoenix, 400 P.2d 364 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965).

Bucks Fin. v. Overley (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542(A)(1) — 1 case

Walk v. Ring, 44 P.3d 990 (Ariz. 2002). “See A.R.S. § 12-542. 2 The trial judge granted this motion, and the court of appeals affirmed.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542(B) — 7 cases

Landgraff v. Wagner, 546 P.2d 26 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). “§ 12-505(C) which states: 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…”

DeBoer v. Brown, 673 P.2d 912 (Ariz. 1983).

Russo v. Diethrich, 617 P.2d 30 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).

Patricia Langager & Leroy Langager, Husband & Wife v. Lake Havasu Cmty. Hosp., 688 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1982).

DeBoer v. Brown, 673 P.2d 922 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).

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.