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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1533 (2026)

Cumulative remedies

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

A. The provisions of this article are in addition to all other causes of action, remedies and penalties available to this state.

B. The provisions of this article shall not bar any claim against any person who has acquired any monies or property, real or personal, by means of any practice declared to be unlawful by this article.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., 666 P.2d 83 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., 666 P.2d 83 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 6× “Do we really want to do this? The fault lies with Sellinger , which put misplaced reliance on an Illinois case involving an Illinois statute, misconstrued the Illinois statute and the Illinois case, misconstrued A.R.S. § 44-1533, and failed to conduct the type of analysis in…”
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Pickrell, 667 P.2d 1304 (Ariz. 1983). · cites it 4× “The bill amending § 44-1533 was titled: An Act relating to trade and commerce; prescribing consumer fraud investigatory authority of the attorney general; prescribing methods of service of demand or subpoena; providing for certain in camera hearings; prescribing applicability of…”
Sparks v. Repub. Nat'l Life Ins., 647 P.2d 1127 (Ariz. 1982). · cites it 2× “We stated: "Although the Act does not specifically provide for a right of action against persons violating the provisions of the article, we believe inferentially such right of action is granted by § 44-1533. It provides: `The provisions of this article shall not bar any claim…”
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc., 258 P.3d 289 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 44-1533(A) (2003) ("The provisions of this article are in addition to all other causes of action, remedies and penalties available to this state.”
Colberg v. Rellinger, 770 P.2d 346 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “We reject this argument because Colberg cites no language in Arizona contractors law to indicate that the legislature contemplated such private claim.”
Peery v. Hansen, 585 P.2d 574 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “In concluding that a private right of action was created by the Consumer Fraud Act, our Supreme Court reasoned: "Although the Act does not specifically provide for a right of action against persons violating the provisions of the article, we believe inferentially such right of…”
Shaw v. CTVT Motors, Inc., 300 P.3d 907 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 44-1533. Where applicable, the CFA reflects “a trend away from the doctrine of caveat emptor toward caveat ven-ditor.”
Cearley v. Wieser, 727 P.2d 346 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “Appellants first argue that appellees had no cause of action under A.R.S. § 44-1533 of the Consumer Fraud Act because, assuming arguendo that they had engaged in unlawful practices, they had not thereby acquired any money or property.”
Ward v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies, 731 P.2d 106 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “, creates a private cause of action for deceptive practices, our supreme court discussed the language of A.R.S. § 44-1533: Although the [Consumer Fraud] Act does not specifically provide for a right of action against persons violating the provisions of the article, we believe…”
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Goodrich, 726 P.2d 215 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “In addition, the Attorney General is authorized by statute to represent the Securities Division of the Commission in actions brought under the provisions of A.”
Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 521 P.2d 1119 (Ariz. 1974). “Although the Act does not specifically provide for a right of action against persons violating the provisions of the article, we believe inferentially such right of action is granted by § 44-1533. It provides : “The provisions of this article shall not bar any claim against any…”
Anderson v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, 355 F. Supp. 3d 830 (E.D. Mo. 2018). “Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1533 (emphasis supplied).”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1533(A) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc., 258 P.3d 289 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “See A.R.S. § 44-1533(A) (2003) ("The provisions of this article are in addition to all other causes of action, remedies and penalties available to this state.”
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Pickrell, 667 P.2d 1304 (Ariz. 1983). “The bill amending § 44-1533 was titled: An Act relating to trade and commerce; prescribing consumer fraud investigatory authority of the attorney general; prescribing methods of service of demand or subpoena; providing for certain in camera hearings; prescribing applicability of…”
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Goodrich, 726 P.2d 215 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “In addition, the Attorney General is authorized by statute to represent the Securities Division of the Commission in actions brought under the provisions of A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1533(B) — 1 case
Finch (D. Ariz. 2026).
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.