Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 15
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-507 (2026)

Abuse of teacher or school employee in school; classification

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

A person who knowingly abuses a teacher or other school employee on school grounds or while the teacher or employee is engaged in the performance of his duties is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2023 · leading case: In Re Nickolas S., 245 P.3d 446 (Ariz. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Nickolas S., 245 P.3d 446 (Ariz. 2011). · cites it 64× “¶ 2 Nickolas was adjudicated delinquent for two counts of violating A.R.S § 15-507. The first count concerned an incident when Nickolas was assigned to a classroom for students serving on-campus suspension.”
In Re Paul M., 7 P.3d 131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 38× “¶ 1 The minor, born February 20, 1985, was adjudicated delinquent for violating A.R.S. § 15-507 by knowingly abusing a teacher or other school employee engaged in the performance of her duties, a class three misdemeanor.”
In Re Julio L, 3 P.3d 383 (Ariz. 2000). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 15-507. However, Julio was not charged under this statute.”
In Re Nickolas S., 226 P.3d 1038 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 21× “We hold that, to prosecute pure speech under A.R.S. § 15-507, the State must establish that the speech constituted “fighting words.”
In Re Kyle M., 27 P.3d 804 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “3d at 133 (“To accept the state’s argument that ‘abusing’ includes ‘insulting’ would mean that the legislature’s amendment of § 15-507 [deleting language making it an offense to insult a teacher] was purely formal, without substantive significance or practical effect.”
Gibson v. Cartwright Elementary Sch. Dist. (D. Ariz. 2023). · cites it 2× “Finally, Plaintiff asserts a state-law claim 26 for teacher abuse under A.R.S. § 15-507. 27 CESD has moved to dismiss.”
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.