Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-121.02 (2026)

Action on denial of access; costs and attorney fees; damages

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

39-121.02. Action on denial of access; costs and attorney fees; damages

A. Any person who has requested to examine or copy public records pursuant to this article and who has been denied access to or the right to copy such records may appeal the denial through a special action in the superior court pursuant to the rules of procedure for special actions against the officer or public body. If a victim is denied access to a public record pursuant to this article in the course of a criminal case in superior court, the victim may appeal the denial through a special action within the criminal case.

B. The court may award attorney fees and other legal costs that are reasonably incurred in any action under this article if the person seeking public records has substantially prevailed. This subsection does not limit the rights of any party to recover attorney fees, expenses and double damages pursuant to section 12-349.

C. Any person who is wrongfully denied access to public records pursuant to this article has a cause of action against the officer or public body for any damages resulting from the denial.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 59 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Arpaio v. Citizen Publ'g Co., 211 P.3d 8 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Arpaio v. Citizen Publ'g Co., 211 P.3d 8 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 73× “In further contrast, the other subsections of § 39-121.02 specifically refer to that officer or public body.”

Democratic Party of Pima Cnty. v. Beth Ford Pima Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 269 P.3d 721 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 27× “The Democratic Party asserts that it “substantially prevailed” in obtaining the records, and it therefore was entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to A.R.S. § 39-121.02. For the following reasons, we affirm.”

West Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 165 P.3d 203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 17× “When a special action is authorized by a statute such as A.R.S. § 39-121.02(A), the issues that may be raised are not limited by the Rules of Procedure for Special Actions.”

Arizona Bd. of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 806 P.2d 348 (Ariz. 1991). · cites it 19× “The Newspapers answered and counterclaimed for special action relief pursuant to A.R.S. § 39-121.02, claiming the Board's refusal to disclose the resumes of presidential candidates violated the public records law.”

Paradigm DKD Grp., LLC v. Pima Cnty. Assessor, 439 P.3d 1210 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 25× “8 The court relied on the factual findings in the special master's Report "along with its own review of the record" to determine Paradigm had "substantially prevailed" up to May 2015.”

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Arizona Dep't of Child Saf., 377 P.3d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “2015) 2 (detailing agency’s obligations when it withholds public records); A.R.S. § 39-121.02(A) (Supp. 2015) (authorizing special action from denial of access to public records).”

Phoenix New Times, L.L.C. v. Arpaio, 177 P.3d 275 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 11× “*537 § 39-121.02(A), in which it asked the superi- or court to order the Sheriff to provide access to all public records responsive to the New Times’ earlier requests.”

Primary Consultants, L.L.C. v. Maricopa Cnty. Recorder, 111 P.3d 435 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 13× “¶ 11 As a preliminary matter, the parties disagree on whether § 16-168 creates an independent scheme for access to voter registration information so that § 39-121.02 does not apply, or whether such records remain public records under the purview of the public records statutes, A.”

Moulton v. Napolitano, 73 P.3d 637 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 7× “¶33 The State contends that we should affirm the dismissal of the claim for public records because the Plaintiffs failed to present this issue in a special action as required by A.R.S. § 39-121.02, but we do not read the statute its way.”

Lake v. City of Phoenix, 207 P.3d 725 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 20× “[16] The legislature amended A.R.S. § 39-121.02 in May of 2006, without specifying an effective date.”

Beau Hodai v. the City of Tucson & Tucson Police Dep't, 365 P.3d 959 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “When we suspended the appeal to allow entry of a signed written order, both parties agreed final judgment should be entered and the court returned a judgment containing language of finality and citation to Ariz.”

Lake v. City of Phoenix, 218 P.3d 1004 (Ariz. 2009). · cites it 6× “f 3 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 39-121.02, Lake filed a special action in the superior court.”

Show all 59 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-121.02(0) — 1 case

Arpaio v. Citizen Publ'g Co., 211 P.3d 8 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “In further contrast, the other subsections of § 39-121.02 specifically refer to that officer or public body.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-121.02(A) — 27 cases

Arpaio v. Citizen Publ'g Co., 211 P.3d 8 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “In further contrast, the other subsections of § 39-121.02 specifically refer to that officer or public body.”

West Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 165 P.3d 203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “When a special action is authorized by a statute such as A.R.S. § 39-121.02(A), the issues that may be raised are not limited by the Rules of Procedure for Special Actions.”

Primary Consultants, L.L.C. v. Maricopa Cnty. Recorder, 111 P.3d 435 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “¶ 11 As a preliminary matter, the parties disagree on whether § 16-168 creates an independent scheme for access to voter registration information so that § 39-121.02 does not apply, or whether such records remain public records under the purview of the public records statutes, A.”

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Arizona Dep't of Child Saf., 377 P.3d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “2015) 2 (detailing agency’s obligations when it withholds public records); A.R.S. § 39-121.02(A) (Supp. 2015) (authorizing special action from denial of access to public records).”

Paradigm DKD Grp., LLC v. Pima Cnty. Assessor, 439 P.3d 1210 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “8 The court relied on the factual findings in the special master's Report "along with its own review of the record" to determine Paradigm had "substantially prevailed" up to May 2015.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-121.02(A)(2001) — 1 case

Moulton v. Napolitano, 73 P.3d 637 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “¶33 The State contends that we should affirm the dismissal of the claim for public records because the Plaintiffs failed to present this issue in a special action as required by A.R.S. § 39-121.02, but we do not read the statute its way.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-121.02(B) — 42 cases

Arpaio v. Citizen Publ'g Co., 211 P.3d 8 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “In further contrast, the other subsections of § 39-121.02 specifically refer to that officer or public body.”

Democratic Party of Pima Cnty. v. Beth Ford Pima Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 269 P.3d 721 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “The Democratic Party asserts that it “substantially prevailed” in obtaining the records, and it therefore was entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to A.R.S. § 39-121.02. For the following reasons, we affirm.”

Arizona Bd. of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 806 P.2d 348 (Ariz. 1991). “The Newspapers answered and counterclaimed for special action relief pursuant to A.R.S. § 39-121.02, claiming the Board's refusal to disclose the resumes of presidential candidates violated the public records law.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-121.02(C) — 6 cases

Arpaio v. Citizen Publ'g Co., 211 P.3d 8 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “In further contrast, the other subsections of § 39-121.02 specifically refer to that officer or public body.”

Fann v. Hon. kemp/Am. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).

Cyber Ninjas v. Hon. Hannah (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).

Matthew Abraham ph.D. v. Arizona Bd. of Regents (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).

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.