Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 22
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-421 (2026)

Commencement of action; arrest or summons; examination of witnesses

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

A. Proceedings in the municipal court for violations of ordinances committed within the corporate limits of the city or town shall be commenced by complaint under oath and in the name of the state, setting forth the offense charged, with such particulars of time, place, person and property as to enable the defendant to understand distinctly the character of the offense complained of and to answer the complaint.

B. If the magistrate is satisfied that the offense complained of has been committed by the person charged, he shall issue a summons or a warrant of arrest. Before issuing a summons or warrant of arrest on a complaint, the magistrate may subpoena and examine witnesses as to the truth of the complaint.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1967–1999 · leading case: Erdman v. Superior Court, 429 P.2d 495 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Erdman v. Superior Court, 429 P.2d 495 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 2× “§ 22-311 concerning commencement of action in Justice Courts, and Division Two of our Court has stated: “We note that the language of the statutes is mandatory—an action ‘shall be commenced by complaint.”
Frohlich v. City Court, 995 P.2d 714 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 13× “After he appeared, appellant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the proceedings were commenced by notice and complaint rather than a “complaint under oath” in accordance with A.R.S. § 22-421. The court denied the motion, and…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-421(A) — 1 case
Frohlich v. City Court, 995 P.2d 714 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “After he appeared, appellant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the proceedings were commenced by notice and complaint rather than a “complaint under oath” in accordance with A.R.S. § 22-421. The court denied the motion, and…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-421(B) — 1 case
Frohlich v. City Court, 995 P.2d 714 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “After he appeared, appellant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the proceedings were commenced by notice and complaint rather than a “complaint under oath” in accordance with A.R.S. § 22-421. The court denied the motion, and…”
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.