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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1992 (2026)

Filing of misleading information with commission

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

It is a fraudulent practice and unlawful:

1. For a person to subscribe to or make or cause to be made an untrue statement of a material fact in an application, registration statement, prospectus, financial statement or document required to be filed under any provision of this chapter or any rule, regulation or order of the commission thereunder.

2. To omit or cause to be omitted from any such application, registration statement, prospectus, financial statement, or other statement or document, a material fact or statement necessary in order to make the statements made therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1975–2003 · leading case: Trimble v. Am. Sav. Life Ins., 733 P.2d 1131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Trimble v. Am. Sav. Life Ins., 733 P.2d 1131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “Arizona Revised Statutes, § 44-1992 states: It is a fraudulent practice and unlawful: 1.”
Barnes v. Vozack, 550 P.2d 1070 (Ariz. 1976). · cites it 6× “§ 44-1991 and also fraud in that defendants made untrue- statements of material fact in their exemption petition of 19 May 1970 in violation of A.R.S. § 44-1992. Trial was before the court without a jury and judgment was in favor of the plaintiff.”
E. Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 79 P.3d 86 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “Neither Cheng, Yuen, Nor Sharma Proved § 44-1999(B)’s Affirmative Defense.”
State v. Tarzian, 665 P.2d 582 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 12× “After a jury trial, appellant Edward Tarzian (defendant) was convicted of filing *240 misleading information with the Arizona Corporation Commission in violation of A.R.S. §§ 44-1992 and 44-2036. He was fined $1500.”
State v. Agnew, 647 P.2d 1165 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “§ 13-331(B), 1 count of false filing, A.R.S. § 44-1992, and 3 counts of embezzlement, A.”
Barnes v. Vozack, 540 P.2d 161 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 4× “In a separate paragraph, Count III further alleges that defendants made untrue statements of material fact in their exemption petition of May 19, 1970, in violation of A.R.S. § 44-1992. Count III concludes by demanding $17,000 plus interest, costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to…”
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.