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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-822 (2026)

Change of venue

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

A. Service of summons in an action against any public entity or public employee involving acts that are alleged to have occurred within the scope of the public employee's employment shall be made pursuant to Arizona rules of civil procedure.

B. In an action against this state upon written demand of the attorney general, made at or before the time of answering, served upon the opposing party and filed with the court where the action is pending, the place of trial of any such action shall be changed to Maricopa county.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Dunn v. Carruth, 784 P.2d 684 (Ariz. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dunn v. Carruth, 784 P.2d 684 (Ariz. 1989). · cites it 62× “In these consolidated cases, we examine the effect of the state's motion for a venue change, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-822(B). We hold that a motion under A.”
Cooke v. Berlin, 735 P.2d 830 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 38× “VENUE A.R.S. § 12-822(B) mandates that upon written demand of the attorney general, the place of trial of any action against the state in contract or negligence actions shall be changed to Maricopa County.”
Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Constr. Co., 733 P.2d 652 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 12× “§ 12-822(A) The Board’s first argument in 1 CA-CIV 7872 is that the lawsuit brought by Mardian against the Board should have been barred by the two-year statute of limitations contained in A.R.S. § 12-822(A). In its own appeal (1 CA-CIV 7950), Mardian argues that if we find that…”
Cochise Cnty. v. Borowiec, 781 P.2d 1379 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 20× “§ 38-611; 2) as director of AHCCCS, Kirschner is a public officer; 3) the seat of state government is in Maricopa County, and AHCCCS is a party or subdivision of the state government as contemplated by A.R.S. § 12-822; 4) in accordance with § 12-822(B), a statute enacted at a…”
State v. Fenton, 786 P.2d 1025 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 11× “Although the lower court was concerned with the absence of a written contract delegating the duty of representation of the state to the private firm, the parties in this special action agree that the sole question involved is whether the attorney general may delegate his…”
Stulce v. Salt River Proj. Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 3 P.3d 1007 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “§ 12-821 (1956) (emphasis added); see also former A.R.S. § 12-822 (1956) (two year statute of limitations after "the cause of action accrues”).”
Johnson v. Univ. Hosp., 712 P.2d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 3× “…the current law the State may seek a change of venue to Maricopa County in any action filed against the State. See A.R.S. § 12-822(B).”
Lakritz v. Superior Court, 880 P.2d 1144 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-822(B). In this case, the state has not sought to have the case removed to Maricopa County.”
Gila Valley Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court, 697 P.2d 681 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 2× “§ 12-824 (renumbered as A.R.S. § 12-822 by Laws 1984, Ch. 285, § 7); State v.”
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State, 696 P.2d 203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS The first issue is whether NPC’s claims were barred by A.R.S. § 12-822, which provides that an action against the state on a contract claim must be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues.”
City of St. Johns v. Superior Court, 746 P.2d 941 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “contended in the trial court, and contends in this special action, that municipal corporations do not come within the general provisions of the venue statute because they come within the words “other corporations” as used in § 12-401(18).”
Morales v. Hon coffey/state, 535 P.3d 52 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “Compare A.R.S. § 12-822(B), with A.R.S. § 12-820.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-822(A) — 3 cases
Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Constr. Co., 733 P.2d 652 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “§ 12-822(A) The Board’s first argument in 1 CA-CIV 7872 is that the lawsuit brought by Mardian against the Board should have been barred by the two-year statute of limitations contained in A.R.S. § 12-822(A). In its own appeal (1 CA-CIV 7950), Mardian argues that if we find that…”
Cochise Cnty. v. Borowiec, 781 P.2d 1379 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). “§ 38-611; 2) as director of AHCCCS, Kirschner is a public officer; 3) the seat of state government is in Maricopa County, and AHCCCS is a party or subdivision of the state government as contemplated by A.R.S. § 12-822; 4) in accordance with § 12-822(B), a statute enacted at a…”
Creasy v. Coxon, 750 P.2d 903 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-822(B) — 9 cases
Dunn v. Carruth, 784 P.2d 684 (Ariz. 1989). “In these consolidated cases, we examine the effect of the state's motion for a venue change, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-822(B). We hold that a motion under A.”
Cooke v. Berlin, 735 P.2d 830 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “VENUE A.R.S. § 12-822(B) mandates that upon written demand of the attorney general, the place of trial of any action against the state in contract or negligence actions shall be changed to Maricopa County.”
Cochise Cnty. v. Borowiec, 781 P.2d 1379 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). “§ 38-611; 2) as director of AHCCCS, Kirschner is a public officer; 3) the seat of state government is in Maricopa County, and AHCCCS is a party or subdivision of the state government as contemplated by A.R.S. § 12-822; 4) in accordance with § 12-822(B), a statute enacted at a…”
State v. Fenton, 786 P.2d 1025 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). “Although the lower court was concerned with the absence of a written contract delegating the duty of representation of the state to the private firm, the parties in this special action agree that the sole question involved is whether the attorney general may delegate his…”
Johnson v. Univ. Hosp., 712 P.2d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “…the current law the State may seek a change of venue to Maricopa County in any action filed against the State. See A.R.S. § 12-822(B).”
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.