Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-413 (2026)
No civil liability for justified conduct
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Susan Ryan v. napier/klein, 425 P.3d 230 (Ariz. 2018).
Susan Ryan v. napier/klein, 425 P.3d 230 (Ariz. 2018). “See A.R.S. § 13-413. Importantly, although the use of force can be justified at its commencement, it loses legal justification at the point the force becomes unnecessary.”
Lewis v. Dirt Sports LLC, 259 F. Supp. 3d 1039 (D. Ariz. 2017). “See A.R.S. §§ 13-413,-404,-406; Gortarez By and Through Gortarez v.”
Pfeil v. Smith, 900 P.2d 12 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “”) section 13-413, we reverse the trial court’s judgment.”
Louis C. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 353 P.3d 364 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “2004), it argues a dependency adjudication does not implicate a parent’s “civil liability” under § 13-413 because it does not create an obligation to pay money damages, as compensation for another’s loss or injury.”
McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc., 293 P.3d 520 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “Nothing in the statutory language suggests § 4-244 was meant to substantively affect the application of civil liability under § 4-311.”
Weekly v. City of Mesa, 888 P.2d 1346 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “The trial court ruled in the City’s favor, reasoning as follows: A.”
Spears v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 372 F. Supp. 3d 893 (D. Ariz. 2019). “Indeed, although civil liability cannot be imposed on a law enforcement officer for "engaging in [justified] conduct," regardless of the theory of recovery, A.R.S. § 13-413, it appears such justification may be an issue for a trier of fact, see e.”
Williams v. Baugh, 154 P.3d 373 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “¶ 8 Furthermore, the legislature has explicitly provided in A.R.S. § 13-413 that “[n]o person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.”
Hulstedt v. City of Scottsdale, 884 F. Supp. 2d 972 (D. Ariz. 2012). “Under the statutes, an officer cannot be liable for using deadly force when offiofficer reasonably believes “that the person is likely to endanger human life or inflict serious bodily injury to another apapprehended without delay.”
Atencio v. Arpaio, 161 F. Supp. 3d 789 (D. Ariz. 2015). “Arpaio Defendants contend they are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ state law claims because their use of force was justified and reasonable under Arizona law, citing A.R.S. § 13-413 and A.R.S. § 13-403(2). The Court disagrees.”
Par. v. Lansdale (D. Ariz. 2019). “54 , 63 (2018) (quoting A.R.S. § 13-413). That statute 13 provides: A person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another if 14 in making or assisting in making an arrest or detention or in preventing or 15 assisting in preventing the escape after arrest…”
Torres v. Maricopa (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 13-410(C) and thus were immune from civil liability for battery under A.R.S. § 13-413. Finally, the court found that the deputies’ conduct was not so extreme and outrageous as to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
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.