A. It is a public nuisance, and is no less a nuisance because the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted is unequal, for anything:
1. To be injurious to health, indecent, offensive to the senses or an obstruction to the free use of property that interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by an entire community or neighborhood or by a considerable number of persons.
2. To unlawfully obstruct the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, river, bay, stream, canal or basin, or any public park, square, street or highway.
B. It is a public nuisance for any person to sell, offer to sell, transfer, trade or disseminate any item which is obscene as defined in section 13-3501, within two thousand feet, measured in a straight line, of the nearest boundary line of any of the following:
1. Any building used as a private or public elementary or high school.
2. Any public park.
3. Any residence district as defined in section 28-101.
C. The county attorney, the attorney general or the city attorney may bring an action in superior court to abate, enjoin and prevent the activity described in subsections A and B of this section.
D. Any person who knowingly maintains or commits a public nuisance or who knowingly fails or refuses to perform any legal duty relating to the removal of a public nuisance is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
Armory Park Neighborhood Ass'n v. Episcopal Cmty. Servs., 712 P.2d 914 (Ariz. 1985).
· cites it 4× “The defendant has read the trial court’s minute entry too strictly. While we acknowledge that public and private nuisances implicate different interests, we recognize also that the same facts may support claims of both public and private nuisance.”
Ernest Quiroz Et Ux v. Alcoa Inc, 416 P.3d 824 (Ariz. 2018).
· cites it 2× “262 (1931) (holding smoke and gas discharged from company's smelter created a nuisance; as a result, company was liable for damages caused to plaintiff's property that was located ten miles from its plant); see also A.R.S. § 13-2917(A)(1) (defining a public nuisance as "anything…”
Mutschler v. City of Phoenix, 129 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 3× “2d 988, 991 (1939) (definition of public nuisance in a substantively identical prior version of § 13-2917 was intended to cover offenses that were construed at common law as public nuisances).”
Hopi Tribe v. Ariz. Snowbowl Resort Ltd. P'ship, 430 P.3d 362 (Ariz. 2018).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 13-2917, 36-601(A)(18). Snowbowl and the City do not argue, nor do we hold, that the Tribe's public nuisance claim is barred by issue or claim preclusion principles based on the Tribe's participation in Navajo Nation or prior administrative and other governmental…”
State v. Jones (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 8× “” In A.R.S. § 13-2917, the Legislature made public nuisance a crime.”
Mohiuddin v. Stern (D. Ariz. 2023).
· cites it 6× “20 It is undisputed that the City received noise complaints about Plaintiff’s business, 21 raising the possibility that Arizona’s public nuisance law, A.R.S. § 13-2917, was being 22 violated. Defendant Stern started the City’s investigation, but ultimately referred it to the 23…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2917(A)(1): 5 cases
Ernest Quiroz Et Ux v. Alcoa Inc, 416 P.3d 824 (Ariz. 2018).
“262 (1931) (holding smoke and gas discharged from company's smelter created a nuisance; as a result, company was liable for damages caused to plaintiff's property that was located ten miles from its plant); see also A.R.S. § 13-2917(A)(1) (defining a public nuisance as "anything…”
Mutschler v. City of Phoenix, 129 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“2d 988, 991 (1939) (definition of public nuisance in a substantively identical prior version of § 13-2917 was intended to cover offenses that were construed at common law as public nuisances).”
State v. Jones (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
“” In A.R.S. § 13-2917, the Legislature made public nuisance a crime.”
Mohiuddin v. Stern (D. Ariz. 2023).
“20 It is undisputed that the City received noise complaints about Plaintiff’s business, 21 raising the possibility that Arizona’s public nuisance law, A.R.S. § 13-2917, was being 22 violated. Defendant Stern started the City’s investigation, but ultimately referred it to the 23…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2917(A)(l): 1 case
Mohiuddin v. Stern (D. Ariz. 2023).
“20 It is undisputed that the City received noise complaints about Plaintiff’s business, 21 raising the possibility that Arizona’s public nuisance law, A.R.S. § 13-2917, was being 22 violated. Defendant Stern started the City’s investigation, but ultimately referred it to the 23…”
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.