Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.04

Punitive and exemplary damages; immunity

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Neither a public entity nor a public employee acting within the scope of his employment is liable for punitive or exemplary damages.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: Braillard v. Maricopa County
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Braillard v. Maricopa County (2010) arizctapp · cites it 7× “13 ¶ 43 The MCSO defendants nonetheless argued below that punitive damages claims under § 1983 are precluded in Arizona by A.R.S. § 12-820.04, which provides that “[n]either a public entity nor a public employee acting within the scope of his employment is liable for punitive or…”
Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents (2008) arizctapp · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 12-820.04 (barring punitive damages against a public entity or "a public employee acting within the scope of his employment"); see State v.”
Spears v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents (2019) azd · cites it 2× “The Court finds the FAC fails to allege a claim against Seastone for which relief may be granted.”
Badia v. City of Casa Grande (1999) arizctapp · cites it 3× “We need not and, therefore, do not decide whether § 14-3110 would preclude damages in a § 1983 action for a decedent’s pain and suffering if the victim were to die as a result of a constitutional violation. III. Punitive Damages Claim ¶ 25 The trial court ruled that the…”
Johnson v. SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA COUNTY (1988) arizctapp · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 12-820.04. Moreover, the state is authorized to defend its employees, A.”
Estate of Braden Ex Rel. Gabaldon v. State (2010) arizctapp · cites it 4× “We reject the State's claim that we should consider APSA analogous to the criminal racketeering laws because of the substantive differences between the statutes.”
Ruelas v. Staff Builders Personnel Services, Inc. (2001) arizctapp · cites it 2× “PUNITIVE DAMAGES ¶ 15 Ruelas contends the trial court erred in finding that the nurses were functionally governmental employees and, therefore, were immune from punitive damages liability pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-820.04. We need not address that issue, however, because Ruelas…”
Ahmad v. State (2018) arizctapp · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 12-820.04 (punitive damages unavailable against public entities and public employees acting within scope of employment).”
Southern Union Co. v. Southwest Gas Corp. (2003) azd · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-820.04. Though that issue was never presented to the jury for resolution, the record in this case strongly suggests that he was not.”
Donahoe v. Arpaio (2013) azd · cites it 2× “” Ariz. Rev.Stat. Ann. § 12-820.04. Nonetheless, punitive damages may be awarded in a § 1983 action when “evil motive or intent” motivates the defendants’ conduct or their conduct manifests “reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.”
Nored v. City of Tempe (2008) azd · cites it 2× “Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 12-820.04 (2003 & Supp.”
Doe v. Dickenson (2009) azd “”), and Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-820.04 (2003) (“Neither a public entity nor a public employee acting within the scope of his employment is liable for punitive or exemplary damages.”
Show all 36 citing cases →
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.