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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.01 (2026)

Absolute immunity

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

A. A public entity shall not be liable for acts and omissions of its employees constituting either of the following:

1. The exercise of a judicial or legislative function.

2. The exercise of an administrative function involving the determination of fundamental governmental policy.

B. The determination of a fundamental governmental policy involves the exercise of discretion and shall include, but is not limited to:

1. A determination of whether to seek or whether to provide the resources necessary for any of the following:

(a) The purchase of equipment.

(b) The construction or maintenance of facilities.

(c) The hiring of personnel.

(d) The provision of governmental services.

2. A determination of whether and how to spend existing resources, including those allocated for equipment, facilities and personnel.

3. The licensing and regulation of any profession or occupation.

4. The establishment, implementation and enforcement of minimum safety standards for light rail transit systems.

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 80 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Kohl v. City of Phoenix, 160 P.3d 170 (Ariz. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kohl v. City of Phoenix, 160 P.3d 170 (Ariz. 2007). · cites it 82× “¶ 3 In response, the City argued that under A.R.S. § 12-820.01 it could not be held liable for its decision not to place a signal at the Intersection.”
Evenstad v. State, 875 P.2d 811 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 33× “A.R.S. § 12-820.01 (1992). Promulgating rules and regulations to enforce laws is not specifically mentioned in A.”
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control Dist., 217 P.3d 1220 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 20× “ss-appeal, the District argues the trial court made a number of reversible errors, including: (1) holding it liable for negligence when the Farmers failed to establish a standard of care, a breach of that standard, or legal causation; (2) instructing the jury on diminished land…”
Bird v. State Through Corbin, 821 P.2d 287 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 34× “The trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the State is absolutely immune under A.R.S. § 12-820.01 from appellants’ claim because the claim relates to the licensing and regulation of structural pest control operators.”
Fidelty Sec. Life Ins. v. State, 935 P.2d 861 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 116× “The only issue on appeal is whether the appellees are entitled to absolute immunity under A.R.S. § 12-820.01. We find they are. In Stone v.”
Fid. Sec. Life Ins. v. State, 954 P.2d 580 (Ariz. 1998). · cites it 13× “¶ 3 In each of the three cases, the superi- or court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint, finding that because the defendants were conducting discretionary regulatory activities concerning the licensing of AMS to do business in Arizona, they were entitled to…”
Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. State, 24 P.3d 1269 (Ariz. 2001). · cites it 14× “A.R.S. § 12-820.01 (1992). 4 . A.R.S. section 12-820.”
Link v. Pima Cnty., 972 P.2d 669 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 9× “Link contends the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the jury to decide whether the County was entitled to absolute immunity from those claims pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-820.01. We will reverse a jury verdict when a jury instruction was erroneous and prejudicial to…”
DeVries v. State, 211 P.3d 1185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 11× “¶ 19 In Galati and Goss , the court focused on A.R.S. § 12-820.01 5 in relation to negli *207 gent roadway design and maintenance claims and determined that absolute immunity did not apply because the municipalities did not affirmatively make discretionary decisions about the…”
Cnty. of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co., 233 P.3d 1169 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “The County argues the trial court erred by denying its motion for JMOL or a new trial because the County enjoyed absolute immunity for these acts and omissions pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-820.01 (2003). 8 ¶ 34 Section 12-820.”
Williams v. Alhambra Sch. Dist. No. 68, 234 F. Supp. 3d 971 (D. Ariz. 2017). · cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 12-820.01 does provide for absolute liability in certain decisions relating to hiring, but it applies to “public entities],” not public officials.”
Kromko v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 146 P.3d 1016 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 22× “The Board, on the other hand, argues that it is immune because its obligation to set tuition is either a legislative act or involves fundamental governmental policy pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-820.01. ¶ 25 The Board is a recognized constitutional entity, Ariz.”
Show all 80 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.01(A) — 17 cases
Gabriel Garibay v. Hon. johnson/fox, 565 P.3d 236 (Ariz. 2025).
Est. of braden/gabaldon v. State, 266 P.3d 349 (Ariz. 2011).
Kromko v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 165 P.3d 168 (Ariz. 2007).
Kromko v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 146 P.3d 1016 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “The Board, on the other hand, argues that it is immune because its obligation to set tuition is either a legislative act or involves fundamental governmental policy pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-820.01. ¶ 25 The Board is a recognized constitutional entity, Ariz.”
Cnty. of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co., 233 P.3d 1169 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “The County argues the trial court erred by denying its motion for JMOL or a new trial because the County enjoyed absolute immunity for these acts and omissions pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-820.01 (2003). 8 ¶ 34 Section 12-820.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.01(A)(1) — 13 cases
Tostado v. City of Lake Havasu, 204 P.3d 1044 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
Kohl v. City of Phoenix, 160 P.3d 170 (Ariz. 2007). “¶ 3 In response, the City argued that under A.R.S. § 12-820.01 it could not be held liable for its decision not to place a signal at the Intersection.”
Galati v. Lake Havasu City, 920 P.2d 11 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
Fidelty Sec. Life Ins. v. State, 935 P.2d 861 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). “The only issue on appeal is whether the appellees are entitled to absolute immunity under A.R.S. § 12-820.01. We find they are. In Stone v.”
Adams v. State, 916 P.2d 1156 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.01(A)(2) — 18 cases
Kohl v. City of Phoenix, 160 P.3d 170 (Ariz. 2007). “¶ 3 In response, the City argued that under A.R.S. § 12-820.01 it could not be held liable for its decision not to place a signal at the Intersection.”
Link v. Pima Cnty., 972 P.2d 669 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “Link contends the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the jury to decide whether the County was entitled to absolute immunity from those claims pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-820.01. We will reverse a jury verdict when a jury instruction was erroneous and prejudicial to…”
Tostado v. City of Lake Havasu, 204 P.3d 1044 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
Fidelty Sec. Life Ins. v. State, 935 P.2d 861 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). “The only issue on appeal is whether the appellees are entitled to absolute immunity under A.R.S. § 12-820.01. We find they are. In Stone v.”
Wilson v. Maricopa Cnty., 463 F. Supp. 2d 987 (D. Ariz. 2006).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.01(B) — 14 cases
Fidelty Sec. Life Ins. v. State, 935 P.2d 861 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). “The only issue on appeal is whether the appellees are entitled to absolute immunity under A.R.S. § 12-820.01. We find they are. In Stone v.”
Evenstad v. State, 875 P.2d 811 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “A.R.S. § 12-820.01 (1992). Promulgating rules and regulations to enforce laws is not specifically mentioned in A.”
Williams v. Alhambra Sch. Dist. No. 68, 234 F. Supp. 3d 971 (D. Ariz. 2017). “A.R.S. § 12-820.01 does provide for absolute liability in certain decisions relating to hiring, but it applies to “public entities],” not public officials.”
Galati v. Lake Havasu City, 920 P.2d 11 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
Link v. Pima Cnty., 972 P.2d 669 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “Link contends the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the jury to decide whether the County was entitled to absolute immunity from those claims pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-820.01. We will reverse a jury verdict when a jury instruction was erroneous and prejudicial to…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.01(B)(1) — 2 cases
Fidelty Sec. Life Ins. v. State, 935 P.2d 861 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). “The only issue on appeal is whether the appellees are entitled to absolute immunity under A.R.S. § 12-820.01. We find they are. In Stone v.”
Doe v. State, 7 P.3d 107 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.01(B)(1)(b) — 2 cases
Tourtillot v. Yuma Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
Langendorf v. Buckeye Water (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.01(B)(2) — 2 cases
Fidelty Sec. Life Ins. v. State, 935 P.2d 861 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). “The only issue on appeal is whether the appellees are entitled to absolute immunity under A.R.S. § 12-820.01. We find they are. In Stone v.”
Langendorf v. Buckeye Water (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.01(B)(3) — 8 cases
De La Cruz v. State, 961 P.2d 1070 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
Bird v. State Through Corbin, 821 P.2d 287 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “The trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the State is absolutely immune under A.R.S. § 12-820.01 from appellants’ claim because the claim relates to the licensing and regulation of structural pest control operators.”
Fidelty Sec. Life Ins. v. State, 935 P.2d 861 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). “The only issue on appeal is whether the appellees are entitled to absolute immunity under A.R.S. § 12-820.01. We find they are. In Stone v.”
Diaz v. Magma Copper Co., 950 P.2d 1165 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
Bottomlee v. State, 459 P.3d 493 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
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.