Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1269 (2026)

Violation; classification; injunctive relief

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

A. A person convicted under this chapter is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor unless another classification is specifically prescribed in this chapter. Violations shall be prosecuted by the county attorney and tried before the superior court in the county in which the violation occurs.

B. In addition to penalties provided in this chapter, the courts of the state are vested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this chapter as nuisances per se, and the county attorneys shall, and the board may, institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain violations. A person damaged, or threatened with loss or injury, by reason of a violation of this chapter is entitled to obtain injunctive relief in any court of competent jurisdiction against any damage or threatened loss or injury by reason of a violation of this chapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1977–2008 · leading case: City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 181 P.3d 219 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 181 P.3d 219 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “2d at 719 , quoting A.R.S. § 32-1269(B). As discussed above, however, billboards that violate the City’s ordinances are not nuisances per se.”
Arizona State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. Hyder, 562 P.2d 717 (Ariz. 1977). · cites it 2× “The statute A.R.S. § 32-1269(B) provides: “In addition to penalties provided in this chapter, the courts of the state are vested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this chapter as nuisances per se, and the county attorneys shall, and the board may, institute…”
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “2d at 719 , quoting A.R.S. § 32-1269(B). As discussed above, however, billboards that violate the City’s ordinances are not nuisances per se.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1269(B) — 3 cases
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 181 P.3d 219 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “2d at 719 , quoting A.R.S. § 32-1269(B). As discussed above, however, billboards that violate the City’s ordinances are not nuisances per se.”
Arizona State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. Hyder, 562 P.2d 717 (Ariz. 1977). “The statute A.R.S. § 32-1269(B) provides: “In addition to penalties provided in this chapter, the courts of the state are vested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this chapter as nuisances per se, and the county attorneys shall, and the board may, institute…”
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “2d at 719 , quoting A.R.S. § 32-1269(B). As discussed above, however, billboards that violate the City’s ordinances are not nuisances per se.”
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.