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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2005 (2026)

Remedy not exclusive

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

Nothing in this article shall limit any statutory or common law right of any person in any court for any act involved in the sale of securities.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1941–2018 · leading case: James C. Sell v. Hon. gama/squire & Co., 295 P.3d 421 (Ariz. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
James C. Sell v. Hon. gama/squire & Co., 295 P.3d 421 (Ariz. 2013). · cites it 2× “Although the ASA’s remedy provisions do not limit “any statutory or common law right of any person in any court for any act involved in the sale of securities,” A.R.S. § 44-2005, Sell would have us superimpose a common law aiding and abetting claim on the ASA’s purely statutory…”
State v. Thompson, 206 P.2d 1037 (Ariz. 1949). “The law governing the matter of new trials (section 44-2005, A.C.A. 1939) expressly states that same shall be granted, if the substantial rights of the defendant have been prejudiced, “when from any other cause not due to his own fault the defendant has not received a fair and…”
State of Arizona v. Pollock, 114 P.2d 249 (Ariz. 1941). “They do not contain the provision found in section 5097, supra, regarding the impeachment of the verdict by the affidavit of a juror.”
Jones v. CPR Div., Upjohn Co., 584 P.2d 611 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 44-2005; Barnes v. Vozack, 113 Ariz.”
Moran v. Jones, 253 P.2d 891 (Ariz. 1953). “Section 44-2005, A.C.A. 1939. We recently held that a trial before a jury, after a four-month period of service had expired, was prejudicial error without showing actual prejudice, as the jury was not lawfully constituted.”
State of Arizona v. Myers, 125 P.2d 441 (Ariz. 1942). “” This assignment is expressly based on that provision of section 44-2005, Arizona Code 1939, reading as follows: “The court shall also grant a new trial when from any other cause not due to his own fault the defendant has not received a fair and impartial trial.”
State v. Zimmer, 472 P.2d 35 (Ariz. 1970). “The law governing the matter of new trials (section 44-2005, A.C.A. 1939) expressly states that same shall be granted, if the substantial rights of the defendant have been prejudiced, ‘when from any other cause not due to his own fault the defendant has not received a fair and…”
J. Ball Trust v. Phx Orchard (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “at 329 , ¶ 26 (quoting A.R.S. § 44-2005). See also Jones v. CPR Div.”
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.