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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2004 (2026)

Limitation of civil actions

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

A. No civil action shall be maintained under this article to enforce any liability based on a violation of section 44-1841 or 44-1842 unless brought within one year after the violation occurs.

B. Except as provided in subsection C of this section, no civil action shall be brought under this article to enforce any liability based on a violation of article 13 of this chapter unless brought within two years after discovery of the fraudulent practice on which the liability is based, or after the discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence.

C. No civil action shall be brought under this article to enforce any liability based on a violation of section 44-1997 or 44-1998 unless brought within two years after the discovery of the untrue statement or the omission. No action shall be brought to enforce a liability created under section 44-1997 more than five years after a bona fide offer of the security to the public or under section 44-1998 more than five years after the sale of the security.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · 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 6× “It may have believed that A.R.S. § 44-2004 required it to do so. The applicable statute is as follows: No civil action shall be brought under this article to enforce any liability founded upon the violation of article 13 [which includes A.”
Aaron v. Fromkin, 994 P.2d 1039 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “As indicated in A.R.S. § 44-2004, the only thing needed to be discovered is the “fraudulent practice,” which in this case was the misrepresentation of material facts.”
Cohen v. Nw. Growth Corp., 385 F. Supp. 2d 935 (D.S.D. 2005). · cites it 3× “44-1998 [for fraud in the purchase or sale of securities] unless brought within one year after the discovery of the untrue statement or the omission or after the discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence.”
Richard W. Bosse v. Crowell Collier & MacMillan, 565 F.2d 602 (9th Cir. 1977). “§ 77m; Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 44-2004(B). Plaintiffs waited for more than a year from their discovery of the alleged securities fraud before amending their complaint to add this claim.”
Washington Nationall Corp. v. Thomas, 570 P.2d 1268 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 44-2004(B) states: “No civil action shall be brought under this article to enforce any liability founded upon a violation of article 13 unless brought within one year after discovery of the fraudulent practice upon which the liability is founded, or after such discovery…”
Strategic Diversity, Inc. v. Alchemix Corp., 666 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2012). “” Ariz. Rev.Stat. § 44-2004(B). The transaction that forms the basis of the complaint occurred on July 8, 2002.”
Geiler v. Arizona Bank, 537 P.2d 994 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 4× “STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS— COUNT II AS TO TANNER, HIS FAMILY, AND HIS CORPORATIONS, AND COUNTS II and III AS TO REDFERN AND THE BANK The applicable statute of limitations is either one year from the date of the violation as to Count II (A.R.S. § 44-2004(A), supra) or one year after…”
Baker v. Walston & Co., 442 P.2d 148 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 44-2004: “A. No civil action shall be maintained under this article to enforce any liability founded upon a violation of §§ 44-1841 or 44T842 unless brought within one year after such violation occurs.”
Diamond Benefits Life Ins. v. Resolute Holdings, Inc., 907 P.2d 63 (Ariz. 1995). · cites it 2× “The court of appeals assumed the trial court imposed the time limitation because it found applicable the statute of limitations for fraud contained in A.R.S. § 44-2004(B). Id. The court of appeals held that the trial court erred by limiting the rescission option to those who…”
State v. Thomas, 285 P.2d 612 (Ariz. 1955). “357(c) (section 44-2004(c), A.C.A.1939). On the same day defendant filed a petition with the trial court for permission to examine a certain pair of white canvas gloves introduced in evidence at the trial as gloves worn by defendant on the night of the murder.”
Rader v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 352 P.3d 465 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “§ 12-542; A.R.S. §§ 44-2004(B), -3241(B). CONCLUSION ¶ 24 The superior court’s judgment is affirmed.”
Kretsch v. Barton (D. Ariz. 2024). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff’s claims have statutes of limitations ranging between 23 two and three years.3 Aside from her breach of contract claim, all of Plaintiff’s claims arise 24 25 3 Two-year statutes of limitation: Arizona Securities Act claims (A.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2004(0) — 1 case
Cohen v. Nw. Growth Corp., 385 F. Supp. 2d 935 (D.S.D. 2005). “44-1998 [for fraud in the purchase or sale of securities] unless brought within one year after the discovery of the untrue statement or the omission or after the discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2004(A) — 2 cases
Cohen v. Nw. Growth Corp., 385 F. Supp. 2d 935 (D.S.D. 2005). “44-1998 [for fraud in the purchase or sale of securities] unless brought within one year after the discovery of the untrue statement or the omission or after the discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence.”
Geiler v. Arizona Bank, 537 P.2d 994 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975). “STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS— COUNT II AS TO TANNER, HIS FAMILY, AND HIS CORPORATIONS, AND COUNTS II and III AS TO REDFERN AND THE BANK The applicable statute of limitations is either one year from the date of the violation as to Count II (A.R.S. § 44-2004(A), supra) or one year after…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2004(B) — 13 cases
Trimble v. Am. Sav. Life Ins., 733 P.2d 1131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “It may have believed that A.R.S. § 44-2004 required it to do so. The applicable statute is as follows: No civil action shall be brought under this article to enforce any liability founded upon the violation of article 13 [which includes A.”
Aaron v. Fromkin, 994 P.2d 1039 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “As indicated in A.R.S. § 44-2004, the only thing needed to be discovered is the “fraudulent practice,” which in this case was the misrepresentation of material facts.”
Richard W. Bosse v. Crowell Collier & MacMillan, 565 F.2d 602 (9th Cir. 1977). “§ 77m; Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 44-2004(B). Plaintiffs waited for more than a year from their discovery of the alleged securities fraud before amending their complaint to add this claim.”
Washington Nationall Corp. v. Thomas, 570 P.2d 1268 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). “A.R.S. § 44-2004(B) states: “No civil action shall be brought under this article to enforce any liability founded upon a violation of article 13 unless brought within one year after discovery of the fraudulent practice upon which the liability is founded, or after such discovery…”
Strategic Diversity, Inc. v. Alchemix Corp., 666 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2012). “” Ariz. Rev.Stat. § 44-2004(B). The transaction that forms the basis of the complaint occurred on July 8, 2002.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2004(C) — 1 case
Cohen v. Nw. Growth Corp., 385 F. Supp. 2d 935 (D.S.D. 2005). “44-1998 [for fraud in the purchase or sale of securities] unless brought within one year after the discovery of the untrue statement or the omission or after the discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2004(c) — 1 case
State v. Thomas, 285 P.2d 612 (Ariz. 1955). “357(c) (section 44-2004(c), A.C.A.1939). On the same day defendant filed a petition with the trial court for permission to examine a certain pair of white canvas gloves introduced in evidence at the trial as gloves worn by defendant on the night of the murder.”
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.