Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 41
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1034 (2026)

Declaratory judgment

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Any person who is or may be affected by a rule may obtain a judicial declaration of the validity of the rule by filing an action for declaratory relief in the superior court in Maricopa county in accordance with title 12, chapter 10, article 2.

B. Any person who is or may be affected by an existing agency practice or substantive policy statement that the person alleges to constitute a rule may obtain a judicial declaration on whether the practice or substantive policy statement constitutes a rule by filing an action for declaratory relief in the superior court in Maricopa county in accordance with title 12, chapter 10, article 2.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Arizona Soc'y of Pathologists v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Sys. Admin., 38 P.3d 1218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arizona Soc'y of Pathologists v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Sys. Admin., 38 P.3d 1218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 11× “Plaintiffs also preserved their request for fees in the trial court in the event this court reversed that decision.”
Phoenix Child.'s Hosp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Sys. Admin., 987 P.2d 763 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 16× “One aggrieved by a rule may challenge its validity by “obtaining] a judicial declaration of the validity of the rule by filing an action for declaratory relief in the superior court in Maricopa county____” A.R.S. § 41-1034. ¶ 7 AHCCCS maintains that the clinical criteria are not…”
Samaritan Health Sys. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Sys. Admin., 11 P.3d 1072 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 13× “Therefore, this case did not involve allegations of improper rule-making subject to the administrative grievance procedure set forth in A.”
Darner Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Ins., 682 P.2d 388 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 2× “§ 41-1034 [§ 20-290, 7 A.R.S.]. An insurance agent performs a personal service for his client, in advising him about the kinds and extent of desired coverage and in choosing the appropriate insurance contract for the insured.”
White Mountain Health Ctr., Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty., 386 P.3d 416 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “§ 12-348(A)(3) (stating a party is entitled to attorneys’ fees if it prevails on an adjudication of the merits in proceeding pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1034 which involves actions for declaratory judgment filed in accordance with the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act).”
Original Apt. Movers, Inc. v. Waddell, 880 P.2d 639 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 41-1034 (person challenging validity of administrative rule can file *422 a declaratory judgment action).”
ruco/thaler v. Acc, No. 1 CA-SA 25-0209 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2025). · cites it 27× “” RUCO asserts its complaint was timely under § 41-1034 because it falls within the one-year limitation for a claim against a public entity under A.R.S. § 12-821.”
Sw. Ambulance, Inc. v. Arizona Dep't of Health Servs., 902 P.2d 1362 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “A proceeding pursuant to § 41-1034. Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated section 41-1034 states: Any person who is or may be affected by a rule may obtain a judicial declaration of the validity of the rule by filing an action for declaratory relief in the superior court in…”
Gray v. Abpe, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0337 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2020). · cites it 6× “Dr. Gray moved for summary judgment, arguing “that the [Board] lacks authority to accept and investigate anonymous complaints.”
Legacy Educ. v. Asbcs, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0023 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 8, 2018). · cites it 3× “[a] proceeding pursuant to § 41-1034.” Although we vacate the dismissal in favor of the Board, this case is not over and must be remanded for resolution in the superior court.”
Repub. Nat'l Comm. v. Adrian Fontes, 566 P.3d 984 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “Although the superior court expressed “concerns about whether [the RNC has] standing for some or all of [its] claims,” it did not expressly rule on that issue.”
Tp Racing v. Simms, No. 1 CA-CV 14-0348, 2016 WL 423803 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2016). · cites it 2× “§ 5-104(D), he had taken an administrative appeal from the Director’s denial of his license application; and, consistent with A.R.S. § 41-1034, he had filed a declaratory judgment special action regarding the Director’s conclusion that he required a license to continue his…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1034(A): 2 cases
Arizona Soc'y of Pathologists v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Sys. Admin., 38 P.3d 1218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “Plaintiffs also preserved their request for fees in the trial court in the event this court reversed that decision.”
Repub. Nat'l Comm. v. Adrian Fontes, 566 P.3d 984 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “Although the superior court expressed “concerns about whether [the RNC has] standing for some or all of [its] claims,” it did not expressly rule on that issue.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1034(B): 4 cases
Arizona Soc'y of Pathologists v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Sys. Admin., 38 P.3d 1218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “Plaintiffs also preserved their request for fees in the trial court in the event this court reversed that decision.”
ruco/thaler v. Acc, No. 1 CA-SA 25-0209 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2025). “” RUCO asserts its complaint was timely under § 41-1034 because it falls within the one-year limitation for a claim against a public entity under A.R.S. § 12-821.”
Gray v. Abpe, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0337 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2020). “Dr. Gray moved for summary judgment, arguing “that the [Board] lacks authority to accept and investigate anonymous complaints.”
Legacy Educ. v. Asbcs, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0023 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 8, 2018). “[a] proceeding pursuant to § 41-1034.” Although we vacate the dismissal in favor of the Board, this case is not over and must be remanded for resolution in the superior court.”
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.