Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 28
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-8424 (2026)

Nonprofit corporation lessees; status; authority; exemptions

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

A. A nonprofit corporation that is a lessee as provided in section 28-8423:

1. Is a validly organized and existing body politic and corporate exercising its powers for the benefit of the people, for the improvement of the people's health and welfare and for the increase of the people's traffic and prosperity.

2. Is engaged in a public purpose essential to transportation and communication.

3. Performs an essential governmental function as an agency or instrumentality of the city, town, county or state.

4. Is exempt from property taxation by this state or an agency of this state.

5. Possesses and may exercise police powers and other governmental powers on the terms, conditions, limitations, restrictions and agreements provided in the lease agreements.

6. May issue bonds, incur obligations and pledge its revenues as security for the payment of bonds and obligations for airport and air terminal purposes to the extent provided by the lease agreement as it exists or as it may be amended, without regard to any statutory limitation of indebtedness of corporations having authorized capital stock.

B. The following do not apply to a nonprofit corporation that leases the Grand Canyon national park airport as provided in section 28-8423:

1. Chapter 20, article 2 of this title.

2. Title 33, chapter 7, article 6.

3. Title 41, chapter 4, article 5 and 6.

4. Title 41, chapter 6.

5. Title 41, chapter 23.

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2014–2019 · leading case: DBT Yuma, L.L.C. v. Yuma Cnty. Airport Auth., 361 P.3d 379 (Ariz. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
DBT Yuma, L.L.C. v. Yuma Cnty. Airport Auth., 361 P.3d 379 (Ariz. 2015). · cites it 26× “The County and DBT Yuma each moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the County’s motion under Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b) and 56.”
DBT Yuma, L.L.C. v. Yuma Cnty. Airport Auth., 340 P.3d 1080 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 28× “Because A.R.S. § 28-8424 does not impose vicarious liability upon Yuma County for the actions of YCAA, we affirm.”
Dakota Territory Tours ACC v. Sedona-Oak Creek Airport Auth. Inc., 383 F. Supp. 3d 885 (D. Ariz. 2019). · cites it 2× “" A.R.S. § 28-8424(A). The courts have treated such entities as functionally identical to cities, towns, and counties for purposes of the Parker immunity analysis.”
Dbt Yuma LLC v. Yuma Cnty. Airport Auth. (Ariz. 2015). · cites it 26× “The County and DBT Yuma each moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the County’s motion under Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b) and 56.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-8424(A) — 2 cases
DBT Yuma, L.L.C. v. Yuma Cnty. Airport Auth., 340 P.3d 1080 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “Because A.R.S. § 28-8424 does not impose vicarious liability upon Yuma County for the actions of YCAA, we affirm.”
Dakota Territory Tours ACC v. Sedona-Oak Creek Airport Auth. Inc., 383 F. Supp. 3d 885 (D. Ariz. 2019). “" A.R.S. § 28-8424(A). The courts have treated such entities as functionally identical to cities, towns, and counties for purposes of the Parker immunity analysis.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-8424(A)(1) — 2 cases
DBT Yuma, L.L.C. v. Yuma Cnty. Airport Auth., 361 P.3d 379 (Ariz. 2015). “The County and DBT Yuma each moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the County’s motion under Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b) and 56.”
Dbt Yuma LLC v. Yuma Cnty. Airport Auth. (Ariz. 2015). “The County and DBT Yuma each moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the County’s motion under Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b) and 56.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-8424(A)(3) — 3 cases
DBT Yuma, L.L.C. v. Yuma Cnty. Airport Auth., 361 P.3d 379 (Ariz. 2015). “The County and DBT Yuma each moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the County’s motion under Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b) and 56.”
DBT Yuma, L.L.C. v. Yuma Cnty. Airport Auth., 340 P.3d 1080 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “Because A.R.S. § 28-8424 does not impose vicarious liability upon Yuma County for the actions of YCAA, we affirm.”
Dbt Yuma LLC v. Yuma Cnty. Airport Auth. (Ariz. 2015). “The County and DBT Yuma each moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the County’s motion under Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b) and 56.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-8424(A)(l) — 1 case
DBT Yuma, L.L.C. v. Yuma Cnty. Airport Auth., 361 P.3d 379 (Ariz. 2015). “The County and DBT Yuma each moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the County’s motion under Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b) and 56.”
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.