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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-517 (2026)

Counterclaims exceeding jurisdiction; procedures; sanctions for improper assertion

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

A. In any action where a counterclaim is asserted and the amount involved in the counterclaim exceeds the jurisdictional amount of the small claims division, the court shall at once terminate the designation as a small claim action, and the action shall proceed in accordance with the rules relating to all other civil actions.

B. If, at any stage during the proceedings subsequent to the termination of the small claims designation as provided in subsection A, the justice of the peace or superior court judge determines that the amount actually involved in the counterclaim is not in excess of the exclusive civil jurisdictional amount of the small claims division, the action shall be reinstated in either the small claims division as a designated small claim action or in the justice court as a regular civil action.

C. If the court makes a determination as provided in subsection B of this section that results in a reinstatement of the small claims designation and further determines that the amount requested in the counterclaim was asserted for the sole purpose of avoiding small claims proceedings, the court so finding shall award the plaintiff costs plus actual reasonable attorney fees incurred in defending the counterclaim.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1974–2010 · leading case: Clusiau v. Clusiau Enter., Inc., 236 P.3d 1194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Clusiau v. Clusiau Enter., Inc., 236 P.3d 1194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 22-517(A) 3. Collateral estoppel does not apply in these circumstances.”
State v. Caruthers, 519 P.2d 44 (Ariz. 1974). · cites it 2× “By A.R.S. § 22-517, the coroner’s jury is charged with not only determining whether a death is occasioned by criminal means but who is guilty thereof.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-517(A) — 1 case
Clusiau v. Clusiau Enter., Inc., 236 P.3d 1194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “A.R.S. § 22-517(A) 3. Collateral estoppel does not apply in these circumstances.”
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.