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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1376 (2026)

Landlord and tenant remedies for abuse of access

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

A. If the tenant refuses to allow lawful access, the landlord may obtain injunctive relief to compel access, or terminate the rental agreement. In either case, the landlord may recover actual damages.

B. If the landlord makes an unlawful entry or a lawful entry in an unreasonable manner or makes repeated demands for entry otherwise lawful but which have the effect of unreasonably harassing the tenant, the tenant may obtain injunctive relief to prevent the recurrence of the conduct or terminate the rental agreement. In either case, the tenant may recover actual damages not less than an amount equal to one month's rent.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2016–2022 · leading case: Stefanovich v. Anderson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stefanovich v. Anderson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 33-1376(B) (emphasis added). ¶7 A party may not “assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless that party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the…”
Smith v. Stick (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 33-1376(B). The jury returned a general verdict for Smith on all claims and counterclaims and awarded her $26,566.”
Steinfelt v. Am. Fam. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “”) section 33-1376 and demanded AFE vacate the premises within five days or “an eviction action may be brought against you to recover possession of the property.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1376(B) — 2 cases
Stefanovich v. Anderson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “A.R.S. § 33-1376(B) (emphasis added). ¶7 A party may not “assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless that party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the…”
Smith v. Stick (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “See A.R.S. § 33-1376(B). The jury returned a general verdict for Smith on all claims and counterclaims and awarded her $26,566.”
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.