Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-807 (2026)

Civil actions by victims or other persons

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

A defendant who is convicted in a criminal proceeding is precluded from subsequently denying in any civil proceeding brought by the victim or this state against the criminal defendant the essential allegations of the criminal offense of which he was adjudged guilty, including judgments of guilt resulting from no contest pleas. An order of restitution in favor of a person does not preclude that person from bringing a separate civil action and proving in that action damages in excess of the amount of the restitution order that is actually paid.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: State v. Iniguez, 821 P.2d 194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Iniguez, 821 P.2d 194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 18× “However, A.R.S. § 13-807 addresses a related subject.”
Repub. Ins. v. Feidler, 875 P.2d 187 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 13× “”) section 13-807 1 and Davis’s no contest plea to aggravated assault preclude Feidler from arguing that Davis was so intoxicated that he did not “intend” his acts.”
Town of Gilbert Prosecutor's Off. v. Downie, 189 P.3d 393 (Ariz. 2008). · cites it 8× “See A.R.S. §§ 13-807 (2001) (providing that a restitution order "does not preclude [a victim] from bringing a separate civil action and proving in that action damages in excess of the amount of the restitution order"); 13-804(G) (recognizing that restitution is not a substitute…”
Williams v. Baugh, 154 P.3d 373 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 23× “Baugh argues that A.R.S. § 13-807, which prohibits a defendant convicted in a criminal case from denying the essential allegations of the criminal conviction in a subsequent civil ease, does not bar him from raising the affirmative defenses of justification, contributory…”
K.B. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 941 P.2d 1288 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 9× “section 13-807 provided: A defendant convicted in a criminal proceeding is precluded from subsequently denying in any civil proceeding the essential allegations of the criminal offense of which he was adjudged guilty, including judgments of guilt resulting from no contest…”
Quintero v. Rodgers, 212 P.3d 874 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “” Nevertheless, A.R.S. § 13-807 (2001) states, A defendant convicted in a criminal proceeding is precluded from subsequently denying in any civil proceeding brought by the victim or this state against the criminal defendant the essential allegations of the criminal offense of…”
W. Agric. Ins. v. Brown, 985 P.2d 530 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 22× “" ¶ 4 In granting summary judgment to Western, the trial court found "that A.R.S. 13-807 would preclude Dr. Kogianes from any sort of recovery against the Plaintiff and based upon the `standing in the shoes' argument, the other Defendants have no greater right against the…”
Picaso v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist., 171 P.3d 1219 (Ariz. 2007). · cites it 6× “TUSD argued in response that the doctrine of issue preclusion (formerly referred to as “collateral estoppel”) also supported the trial court’s ruling. The superior court denied the new trial motion, reasoning that “[w]hether the Court’s evidentiary ruling was characterized as…”
Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. v. White, 65 P.3d 449 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “¶ 16 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-807 (2001), “[a] defendant convicted in a criminal proceeding is precluded from subsequently denying in any civil proceeding brought by the victim .”
State v. Wideman, 798 P.2d 1373 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “Part of the difficulty in this case may result from a failure to distinguish between restitution in a criminal case and civil damages which may be recovered in a separate civil proceeding.”
Lewis v. Dirt Sports LLC, 259 F. Supp. 3d 1039 (D. Ariz. 2017). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-807, "[a] defendant who is convicted in a criminal proceeding is precluded from subsequently denying in any civil proceeding brought by the victim .”
Cretens v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 60 F. Supp. 2d 987 (D. Ariz. 1999). · cites it 24× “With A.R.S. § 13-807, the Arizona legislature has statutorily provided that an insured may not deny an essential allegation of a criminal offense in a subsequent civil trial.”
Show all 33 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.