Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 23
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1393 (2026)

Court jurisdiction

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

A. Any person who is aggrieved or is injured in his business or property by reason of any violation of this article, or a violation of an injunction issued as provided in this section, may sue in the superior court in the county having jurisdiction of the parties for recovery of any damages resulting from the unlawful action, regardless of where such unlawful action occurred and regardless of where such damage occurred, including costs of the suit and reasonable attorney fees. On the filing of the suit the court also has jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order as it deems just and proper. Petitions for injunctive relief or temporary restraining orders shall be heard expeditiously. Petitions for temporary restraining orders alleging a violation of section 23-1385 shall be heard forthwith and if the petition alleges that substantial and irreparable injury to the petitioner is unavoidable such temporary restraining orders may be issued pursuant to rule 65 of the Arizona rules of civil procedure.

B. In the case of a strike or boycott, or threat of a strike or boycott, against an agricultural employer, the court may grant, and on proper application shall grant as provided in this section, a ten day restraining order enjoining such a strike or boycott, provided that if an agricultural employer invokes the court's jurisdiction to issue the ten day restraining order to enjoin a strike as provided by this subsection, the employer as a condition must agree to submit the dispute to binding arbitration as the means of settling the unresolved issues. If the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator within two days after the court awards a restraining order, the court shall appoint one to decide the unresolved issues. Any agricultural employer is entitled to injunctive relief accorded by rule 65 of the Arizona rules of civil procedure on the filing of a verified petition showing that his agricultural employees are unlawfully on strike or are unlawfully conducting a boycott, or are unlawfully threatening to strike or boycott, and that the resulting cessation of work or conduct of a boycott will result in the prevention of production or the loss, spoilage, deterioration or reduction in grade, quality or marketability of an agricultural commodity or commodities for human consumption in commercial quantities. For the purpose of this subsection, an agricultural commodity or commodities for human consumption with a market value of five thousand dollars or more constitutes commercial quantities.

C. For the purpose of this article, the superior court has jurisdiction of a labor organization in this state if such organization maintains its principal office in this state, or if its duly authorized officers or agents are engaged in promoting or protecting the interests of agricultural employee members or in the solicitation of such prospective members in this state.

D. The service of any summons, subpoena or other legal process of the superior court on an officer or agent of a labor organization, in his capacity as such, constitutes service on the labor organization.

E. Any labor organization that represents employees as defined in this article, and any agricultural employer, are bound by the acts of its agents. Any such labor organization may sue or be sued as an entity and in behalf of the employees whom it represents in the courts of this state.

F. For the purposes of this article, in determining whether any person is acting as an agent of another person in order to make the other person responsible for his acts, the question of whether the specific acts performed were actually authorized or subsequently ratified is not controlling. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude an agent being sued both in his capacity as an agent and as an individual.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1976–1991 · leading case: United Farm Workers Nat'l Union v. Babbitt, 449 F. Supp. 449 (D. Ariz. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United Farm Workers Nat'l Union v. Babbitt, 449 F. Supp. 449 (D. Ariz. 1978). · cites it 26× “§ 23-1393(B) which in pertinent part reads: § 23-1393. Court jurisdiction . . . . . B.”
Bruce Church, Inc. v. United Farm Workers of Am., 816 P.2d 919 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 16× “In the private party damage case, Bruce Church argues, the act does not require the unlawful conduct to have occurred within the state, as made clear by A.R.S. § 23-1393. That section provides: Any person who is aggrieved or is.”
Arizona Farmworkers Union v. Phoenix Vegetable Distributors, 747 P.2d 574 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 20× “R.S. § 23-1393(A) provides, in pertinent part: Any person who is aggrieved or is injured in his business or property by reason of any violation of this article [the Arizona Act], .”
Agric. Emp. Relations Bd. v. United Farm Workers of Am., 548 P.2d 429 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 4× “In support of its contention that the superior court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Board to adjudicate unfair labor practices, the UFW relies primarily upon the language of A.R.S. § 23-1393(A) which states: Any person who is aggrieved or is injured in his business or…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1393(A) — 3 cases
Arizona Farmworkers Union v. Phoenix Vegetable Distributors, 747 P.2d 574 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “R.S. § 23-1393(A) provides, in pertinent part: Any person who is aggrieved or is injured in his business or property by reason of any violation of this article [the Arizona Act], .”
Bruce Church, Inc. v. United Farm Workers of Am., 816 P.2d 919 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “In the private party damage case, Bruce Church argues, the act does not require the unlawful conduct to have occurred within the state, as made clear by A.R.S. § 23-1393. That section provides: Any person who is aggrieved or is.”
Agric. Emp. Relations Bd. v. United Farm Workers of Am., 548 P.2d 429 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). “In support of its contention that the superior court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Board to adjudicate unfair labor practices, the UFW relies primarily upon the language of A.R.S. § 23-1393(A) which states: Any person who is aggrieved or is injured in his business or…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1393(B) — 1 case
United Farm Workers Nat'l Union v. Babbitt, 449 F. Supp. 449 (D. Ariz. 1978). “§ 23-1393(B) which in pertinent part reads: § 23-1393. Court jurisdiction . . . . . B.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1393(F) — 1 case
United Farm Workers Nat'l Union v. Babbitt, 449 F. Supp. 449 (D. Ariz. 1978). “§ 23-1393(B) which in pertinent part reads: § 23-1393. Court jurisdiction . . . . . B.”
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.