Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 47
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-3101 (2026)

Short title

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

This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Commercial Code -- Negotiable Instruments.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1985–2013 · leading case: Diessner v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., 618 F. Supp. 2d 1184 (D. Ariz. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Diessner v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., 618 F. Supp. 2d 1184 (D. Ariz. 2009). · cites it 2× “” 13 Count one is based on Diessner’s argument that “[kinder the law of negotiable instruments as codified in the Uniform Commercial Code (codified in Arizona at A.R.S. § 47-3101, et al), a purported Note holder who is not in possession of the original negotiable instrument is…”
Koss Corp. v. Am. Express Co., 309 P.3d 898 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “§§ 3-301 to -605; accord A.R.S. §§ 47-3101 through -3605 (2005 & Supp.”
Rodney v. Arizona Bank, 836 P.2d 434 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Article Three of Arizona’s Commercial Code (A.R.S. §§ 47-3101 to 47-3805) determines Rodney’s rights under the note.”
City of Phoenix v. Great W. Bank & Trust, 712 P.2d 966 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “The term “course of dealing” is not implied, referenced or applicable to transactions involving Commercial Paper (§ 47-3101, et seq.). Unlike a sales contract under the Sales provisions (§ 47-2101 et seq.”
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.