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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1531 (2026)

Violations; civil penalties

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

A. If a court finds that any person has wilfully violated section 44-1522, the attorney general upon petition to the court may recover from the person on behalf of the state a civil penalty of not more than ten thousand dollars per violation.

B. For purposes of this section, a wilful violation occurs when the party committing the violation knew or should have known that his conduct was of the nature prohibited by section 44-1522.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1973–2016 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc., 258 P.3d 289 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc., 258 P.3d 289 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 16× “See A.R.S. § 44-1531, -1532 (2003). But nowhere in this statutory scheme is the attorney general specifically given power to seek a disgorgement remedy nor is the court authorized to order disgorgement.”
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. United Energy Corp., 725 P.2d 752 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 17× “§ 45 (7) is not the statute which most closely parallels A.R.S. § 44-1531. 15 U.S.C. § 45 (7), interpreted in J.”
Peery v. Hansen, 585 P.2d 574 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 6× “The recipient of the civil penalty described in A.R.S. § 44-1531 [2] is not a private individual, but rather the state.”
State v. Hameroff, 884 P.2d 266 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 44-1531 permits the imposition of civil penalties of not more than $10,000 per violation for wilful violations of the Act.”
People Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Green Acres Trust, 618 P.2d 1086 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “00 be assessed for each violation pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1531, that the trial court order restoration to the victims pursuant to A.”
Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C., 183 P.3d 544 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “1994) (concluding without discussion that statutory consumer fraud claim is “liability created by statute” under § 12-541(5), despite provision of penalties for violation of act in A.R.S. § 44-1531); Murry v. W. Am. Mortgage Co.”
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Hovatter, 698 P.2d 225 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “§ 13-2314(D) and $505,000 pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1531 was entered against Hovatter.”
Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 521 P.2d 1119 (Ariz. 1974). “Where a receiver has been appointed, a person who has suffered damages by reason of unlawful practices may participate with general creditors in the distribution of the assets.”
Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 511 P.2d 682 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973). “§44-1531. Violations; civil penalties A. If a court finds that any person is wilfully using or has wilfully used any act or practice declared unlawful by § 44 — 1522 of this article, the attorney general upon petition to the court may recover on behalf of the state a civil…”
In re: Emma Noemi Hobbs (9th Cir. BAP 2016). · cites it 2× “00 in civil penalties pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1531[.] 16 17 Judgment, August 24, 2010, Pima County Superior Court Case No.”
In re: Emma Noemi Hobbs (9th Cir. BAP 2016). · cites it 2× “00 in civil penalties pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1531[.] 16 17 Judgment, August 24, 2010, Pima County Superior Court Case No.”
Michael Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “1994) (concluding without discussion that statutory consumer fraud claim is “liability created by statute” under § 12- 541(5), despite provision of penalties for violation of act in A.R.S. § 44-1531); Murry v. W. Am. Mortgage Co.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1531(A) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc., 258 P.3d 289 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “See A.R.S. § 44-1531, -1532 (2003). But nowhere in this statutory scheme is the attorney general specifically given power to seek a disgorgement remedy nor is the court authorized to order disgorgement.”
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. United Energy Corp., 725 P.2d 752 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “§ 45 (7) is not the statute which most closely parallels A.R.S. § 44-1531. 15 U.S.C. § 45 (7), interpreted in J.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1531(B) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc., 258 P.3d 289 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “See A.R.S. § 44-1531, -1532 (2003). But nowhere in this statutory scheme is the attorney general specifically given power to seek a disgorgement remedy nor is the court authorized to order disgorgement.”
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. United Energy Corp., 725 P.2d 752 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “§ 45 (7) is not the statute which most closely parallels A.R.S. § 44-1531. 15 U.S.C. § 45 (7), interpreted in J.”
State v. Hameroff, 884 P.2d 266 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “A.R.S. § 44-1531 permits the imposition of civil penalties of not more than $10,000 per violation for wilful violations of the Act.”
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.