A. Justices of the peace have jurisdiction only as affirmatively conferred on them by law.
B. Justices of the peace have exclusive original jurisdiction of all civil actions when the amount involved, exclusive of interest, costs and awarded attorney fees when authorized by law, is ten thousand dollars or less.
C. Justices of the peace have jurisdiction concurrent with the superior court in cases of forcible entry and detainer when the amount involved, exclusive of interest, costs and awarded attorney fees when authorized by law, is ten thousand dollars or less.
D. Justices of the peace have jurisdiction to try the right to possession of real property when title or ownership is not a subject of inquiry in the action. If in any such action the title or ownership of real property becomes an issue, the justice shall so certify in the court record, at once stop further proceedings in the action and forward all papers, together with a certified copy of the court record in the action, to the superior court, where the action shall be docketed and determined as though originally brought in the superior court.
E. In a county with a population of more than two million persons, the justice of the peace of each justice precinct shall have original jurisdiction to hear the following actions that occur in the respective precinct in which the justice of the peace is elected:
1. Civil actions pursuant to subsections B and C of this section.
2. Small claims pursuant to chapter 5 of this title.
3. Civil traffic offenses unless a civil traffic offense is filed in a municipal court by a municipal officer or agent or by an officer employed by a law enforcement agency under contract to that municipality to provide law enforcement services.
4. Special detainers and forcible detainers pursuant to title 33, chapters 11 and 19 and forcible detainers pursuant to title 33, chapter 3 if the amount of rent requested is ten thousand dollars or less.
F. In actions between landlord and tenant for possession of leased premises, the title to the property leased shall not be raised nor made an issue.
G. If in any action before a justice of the peace a party files a verified pleading that states as a counterclaim a claim in which the amount involved, exclusive of interest and costs, is more than ten thousand dollars, the justice of the peace shall certify this in the court record, at once stop further proceedings in the action and forward all papers, together with a certified copy of the court record in the action, to the superior court, where the action shall be docketed and determined as though originally brought in the superior court. The party shall pay to the clerk of the superior court the same fees required to be paid by a defendant, and no other party in the action before the justice of the peace shall be required to pay any sum. If the party is finally adjudged to be entitled to recover on the counterclaim, exclusive of interest and costs, ten thousand dollars or less, the superior court may deny costs to the party and, in addition, may impose costs, including reasonable attorney fees, on the party. The superior court shall have original jurisdiction of the action, but at any time in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or if it appears that the amount involved in the counterclaim, exclusive of interest and costs, is ten thousand dollars or less, it may remand the action, or any claim or counterclaim of which the justice court has jurisdiction, to the justice court and may order costs.
H. The justice of the peace may require arbitration or other dispute resolution methods that are approved by the supreme court in all civil actions except eviction actions.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
31
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1963–2024 · leading case:
Boltz & Odegaard v. Hohn, 714 P.2d 854 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
Boltz & Odegaard v. Hohn, 714 P.2d 854 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 24× “The failure to verify that the damages in the counterclaim exceeded $1,000 was merely a technical defect which was later cured by the defendant’s testimony under oath at trial that his damages exceeded $1,000.”
Claudia Duff v. Hon. lee/tucson Police, 476 P.3d 315 (Ariz. 2020).
· cites it 7× “¶19 Despite its language, however, § 22-201 does not give justice courts exclusive jurisdiction over civil cases between $1,000 and $10,000 and therefore cannot impose an implied jurisdictional limit in § 12-133.”
State Ex Rel. Neely v. Brown, 864 P.2d 1038 (Ariz. 1993).
· cites it 15× “We accepted this petition for review to determine whether the amendment to AR.S. § 22-201 repealed jurisdiction of the superior courts granted in forfeiture actions pursuant to AR.”
Carrow Co. v. Lusby, 804 P.2d 747 (Ariz. 1990).
· cites it 4× “The case was transferred to superior court pursuant to A.R.S. § 22-201(F), which requires such a transfer upon the filing of a counterclaim seeking damages in excess of $2,500.”
Morgan v. Cont'l Mortg. Investors, 491 P.2d 475 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 7× “The justice court had jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 22-201, subsec. B. The defendants in the justice court are the appellants in the Court of Appeals and will be collectively referred to as the tenants.”
Duff v. Lee, 439 P.3d 1199 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “We reject Duff's somewhat strained argument that § 12-133 must be read in conjunction with A.R.S. § 22-201(B), which pertains to justice court jurisdiction, and therefore requires that the base amount for cases subject to § 12-133 arbitration be no lower than $10,000.”
Judson Sch. v. Wick, 494 P.2d 698 (Ariz. 1972).
· cites it 4× “, the action by the Legislature vests the exclusive jurisdiction for the above type of claims in the justice courts to the exclusion of the Superior Court.”
Massey v. Bayless, 927 P.2d 338 (Ariz. 1996).
· cites it 2× “section 22-201(B) (Supp.1995) provides that justice courts have civil jurisdiction of cases involving amounts less than five thousand dollars, Article 6, section 22, mandates that justices of the peace be admitted to the practice of law in Arizona.”
Hernandez v. Maricopa Cnty., 673 P.2d 341 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “VI, § 1; A.R.S. §§ 22-201 et seq. Maricopa County has no power to control the implementation and execution of those duties.”
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Wetzel, 574 P.2d 826 (Ariz. 1978).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 22-201(B) states: “Justices of the peace have exclusive original jurisdiction of all civil actions when the amount involved, * * is less than five hundred dollars * *”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-201(B) — 11 cases
Claudia Duff v. Hon. lee/tucson Police, 476 P.3d 315 (Ariz. 2020).
“¶19 Despite its language, however, § 22-201 does not give justice courts exclusive jurisdiction over civil cases between $1,000 and $10,000 and therefore cannot impose an implied jurisdictional limit in § 12-133.”
State Ex Rel. Neely v. Brown, 864 P.2d 1038 (Ariz. 1993).
“We accepted this petition for review to determine whether the amendment to AR.S. § 22-201 repealed jurisdiction of the superior courts granted in forfeiture actions pursuant to AR.”
Duff v. Lee, 439 P.3d 1199 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“We reject Duff's somewhat strained argument that § 12-133 must be read in conjunction with A.R.S. § 22-201(B), which pertains to justice court jurisdiction, and therefore requires that the base amount for cases subject to § 12-133 arbitration be no lower than $10,000.”
Massey v. Bayless, 927 P.2d 338 (Ariz. 1996).
“section 22-201(B) (Supp.1995) provides that justice courts have civil jurisdiction of cases involving amounts less than five thousand dollars, Article 6, section 22, mandates that justices of the peace be admitted to the practice of law in Arizona.”
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Wetzel, 574 P.2d 826 (Ariz. 1978).
“A.R.S. § 22-201(B) states: “Justices of the peace have exclusive original jurisdiction of all civil actions when the amount involved, * * is less than five hundred dollars * *”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-201(C) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-201(F) — 2 cases
Boltz & Odegaard v. Hohn, 714 P.2d 854 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“The failure to verify that the damages in the counterclaim exceeded $1,000 was merely a technical defect which was later cured by the defendant’s testimony under oath at trial that his damages exceeded $1,000.”
Carrow Co. v. Lusby, 804 P.2d 747 (Ariz. 1990).
“The case was transferred to superior court pursuant to A.R.S. § 22-201(F), which requires such a transfer upon the filing of a counterclaim seeking damages in excess of $2,500.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-201(G) — 1 case
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.