Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 44
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1405 (2026)

Judicial jurisdiction

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

An action for violation of this article shall be brought in the superior court.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1961–2018 · leading case: Richard W. Bosse v. Crowell Collier & MacMillan, 565 F.2d 602 (9th Cir. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Richard W. Bosse v. Crowell Collier & MacMillan, 565 F.2d 602 (9th Cir. 1977). “That statute was repealed effective August 9, 1974, while this case was pending in district court, and replaced by the corresponding provision found in id. § 44-1408(B) (Supp. 1976-77) (part of the Uniform State Antitrust Act), which confers standing to any “person .”
In re Remicade Antitrust Litig., 345 F. Supp. 3d 566 (E.D. Pa. 2018). “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1405 ("An action for violation of this article shall be brought in the superior court.”
Long v. Arizona Portland Cement Co., 362 P.2d 741 (Ariz. 1961). · cites it 2× “Any such combination is against public policy, unlawful and void * * Furthermore, A.R.S. § 44-1405, subd. B states that *369 “B.”
Cowley v. Braden Indus., Inc., 613 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1980). “Finally, appellants contend that if Aeromotor’s conduct violated either state or federal antitrust law, then recovery on the counterclaim is barred under Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-1405(A) & (B) which permits a party to defend on the ground that the claim grew out of illegal conduct on…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1405(A) — 1 case
Cowley v. Braden Indus., Inc., 613 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1980). “Finally, appellants contend that if Aeromotor’s conduct violated either state or federal antitrust law, then recovery on the counterclaim is barred under Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-1405(A) & (B) which permits a party to defend on the ground that the claim grew out of illegal conduct on…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1405(B) — 1 case
Richard W. Bosse v. Crowell Collier & MacMillan, 565 F.2d 602 (9th Cir. 1977). “That statute was repealed effective August 9, 1974, while this case was pending in district court, and replaced by the corresponding provision found in id. § 44-1408(B) (Supp. 1976-77) (part of the Uniform State Antitrust Act), which confers standing to any “person .”
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.