Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 33
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1302 (2026)

Purposes

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

Underlying purposes and policies of this chapter are:

1. To simplify, clarify, modernize and revise the law governing the rental of dwelling units and the rights and obligations of landlord and tenant.

2. To encourage landlord and tenant to maintain and improve the quality of housing.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2022 · leading case: Ibarra v. Gastelum, 471 P.3d 1028 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ibarra v. Gastelum, 471 P.3d 1028 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 33-1302. Remedies available under the Act focus on relief other than personal injuries, such as possession, lease termination and payment for repairs.”
Kadera v. Superior Court, 931 P.2d 1067 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “THE INAPPLICABILITY OF ARLTA AND SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS The legislative purpose behind the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (“ARLTA”) is expressed in section 33-1302: ARLTA was passed both to “simplify, clarify, modernize and revise the law governing the rental of…”
Mead, Samuel & Co., Inc. v. Dyar, 622 P.2d 512 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). “We are unable to glean an intent by the Legislature to allow any counterclaim which may be said to have arisen in some general manner out of the landlord-tenant relationship from § 33-1302 or any other part of the act which has been cited to us or from comments to the Uniform…”
Van Buren Apts. v. Adams, 701 P.2d 583 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 33-1302. Under § 33-1324 the landlord must maintain fit premises, including the maintenance in good and safe working order and condition of all plumbing and sanitary facilities supplied or required to be supplied by him.”
Matthews v. Bridge III Az Onnix (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “¶16 Matthews argues Bridge Investment Group’s liability insurance policy should have been admitted under Arizona Rule of Evidence 411 to prove it owned Onnix.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1302(1) — 1 case
Matthews v. Bridge III Az Onnix (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “¶16 Matthews argues Bridge Investment Group’s liability insurance policy should have been admitted under Arizona Rule of Evidence 411 to prove it owned Onnix.”
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.