Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-120.21

Section 12-120.21 gives the Court of Appeals power to modify a superior court order fixing attorney fees when it has all the facts.

Kalkbrenner v. Anderson · filed 1965-09-10

We hold that under the statutes-defining the jurisdiction and venue of this-court, A.R.S. § 12-120.21, we likewise have the power to modify an order of the Superior Court fixing attorney fees when we are in possession of all the facts.

Section 12-120.21(A)(2) gives the Court of Appeals jurisdiction over qualifying superior court appeals concurrently with the Supreme Court.

Arizona Podiatry Ass'n v. Director of Insurance · filed 1966-12-22(A)(2)

This provision has been implemented by A.R.S. § 12-120.21 and A.R.S. § 12-2101, quoted in part, supra. ... It must be presumed that the legislature knew of these constitutional provisions vesting this jurisdiction and power in the supreme court, and therefore it was its intention that the jurisdiction of the court of appeals would be concurrent with that of the supreme court.

Section 12-120.21(A)(1) does not give the Court of Appeals jurisdiction over a further appeal from a forcible detainer action originally filed in justice court and appealed to superior court.

Morgan v. Continental Mortgage Investors · filed 1971-12-07(A)(1)

This broad grant is found in A.R.S. § 12-120.21. ... We hold that where a forcible detainer action was originally filed in the justice court and then appealed to the Superior Court the appellate relief has been exhausted and there is no Court of Appeals jurisdiction to entertain a further appeal.

Section 12-120.21(A)(1) does not give the court of appeals jurisdiction over a further appeal from a justice court case that raises only factual and evidentiary disputes.

Sanders v. Moore · filed 1977-12-29(A)(1)

A.R.S. § 12-120.21 A(l) quoted supra, does give this Court, with certain exceptions not here pertinent, jurisdiction in all actions and proceedings “permitted by law to be appealed from the superior court.” ... However, such argument is of no avail to appellant here, inasmuch as his appeal involves only evidentiary and factual disputes, and not the validity of a tax, impost, assessment, toll, statute or municipal ordinance. ... We therefore hold that the Court lacks jurisdiction and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Section 12-120.21(A)(1) gives the Court of Appeals jurisdiction over a criminal appeal when no death or life sentence has actually been imposed.

State v. Moya · filed 1981-04-30(A)(1)

Section (A)(1) of that statute provides that the Court of Appeals shall have “[a]ppellate jurisdiction in all actions and proceedings ..., except criminal actions involving crimes for which a sentence of death or life imprisonment has actually been imposed” (Emphasis added). In the present case, no sentence has been imposed; therefore, the Court of Appeals did have jurisdiction.

Section 12-120.21(A)(1) gives the court of appeals concurrent jurisdiction over referendum appeals; parties should file those appeals there.

Perini Land & Development Co. v. Pima County · filed 1992-01-07(A)(1)

Although we have concurrent jurisdiction with the court of appeals over referenda appeals, a party should file any future action challenging a decision in a referendum case in the court of appeals.

Section 12-120.21 gives the Court of Appeals concurrent jurisdiction over authorized appeals from Superior Court judgments even when an older statute names the Supreme Court.

Industrial Commission v. Harbor Insurance Company · filed 1967-01-26

Under A.R.S. § 12-120.21 the Court of Appeals is one of the proper courts to hear the case and the transfer of the case to this Court based on lack of jurisdiction in the Court of Appeals was erroneous.

Section 12-120.21(A) limits the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction in this appeal to actions originating in the superior court.

State v. Freader · filed 1985-01-15(A)

In seeking return of his fine, appellant asks this court to exceed its jurisdiction. In the context of the appeal presently before us, our jurisdiction extends only to actions that originate in the superior court. A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A).

Section 12-120.21(A)(1) gives the court of appeals jurisdiction over cases originating in superior court or legally appealable from superior court; a civil traffic violation fits neither category.

State v. Poli · filed 1989-07-18(A)(1)

A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(1) gives this court appellate jurisdiction over cases originating in or permitted by law to be appealed from the superior court. A case involving a civil traffic violation fits neither category.

Section 12-120.21(A)(1) gives the court of appeals jurisdiction over ballot measure signature certification appeals concurrently with the Arizona Supreme Court.

Fleischman v. Protect Our City · filed 2007-03-14(A)(1)

Absent any expressed intent to give this Court exclusive jurisdiction, we did not interpret the statutes vesting appellate jurisdiction in this Court as limiting the jurisdiction that A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101 separately vest in the court of appeals. ... Nonetheless, as in Perini, the constitutional and statutory grants of jurisdiction indicate that this Court and the court of appeals have concurrent appellate jurisdiction.

Section 12-120.21(A)(1)’s general grant of appellate jurisdiction does not authorize a direct appeal barred by § 13-4033(B).

State of Arizona v. Celaya · filed 2006-06-30(A)(1)

The state agrees this court has jurisdiction, citing article VI, § 9 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13- 4033(A). But neither the constitutional provision nor these statutes confer direct appellate jurisdiction of this case.

Section 12-120.21(A)(1), as amended in 1989, gives the Arizona Court of Appeals jurisdiction over criminal convictions carrying life sentences and ends the Arizona Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction over those cases.

Crowell v. Knowles · filed 2007-04-12(A)(1)

In April 1989, however, A.R. S. § 12-120.21(A)(1) and § 13-4031 were amended to omit the phrase, “or life imprisonment.” The effect of this change was to give the Arizona Court of Appeals jurisdiction over criminal convictions carrying life sentences and eliminate the Supreme Court’s exclusive and mandatory jurisdiction.

Section 12-120.21(A)(1) gives the court of appeals jurisdiction over a proceeding reviewed by the superior court when another statute permits an appeal from the superior court’s decision.

Stant v. City of Maricopa Employee Merit Board · filed 2014-02-25(A)(1)

In keeping with our precedents, we therefore conclude we have jurisdiction over the present appeal because the proceeding is one “permitted by law to be appealed from the superior court” under § 12-120.21(A)(1).

Section 12-120.21 limits the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction in an appeal; it cannot grant a motion for prescribed medical care outside that appeal’s scope.

Carlson v. Phillips · filed 2019-12-10

We deny Carlson's "Motion for Prescribed Doctor & or Medical Care" because his requested relief falls outside the scope of our jurisdiction in this appeal. A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21, -2101(A)(1).

Section 12-120.21 does not bar an appeal from a default judgment merely because the appellant did not first seek relief from that judgment in superior court.

Melbye v. Dennis · filed 2024-09-09(A)(1)

The statutes that define our jurisdiction do not mention any limitation on appeals from default judgments. See A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21, 12-2101; see also Baker v. Bradley, 231 Ariz. 475, ¶ 8 (App. 2013) (appellate jurisdiction “is defined by statute”).

Section 12-120.21(A) does not give the court of appeals jurisdiction to review matters outside the notice of appeal.

Mitchell v. Martinet · filed 2025-11-18(A)

Because we lack jurisdiction over matters not contained in the present notice of appeal, we will not consider Mitchell’s arguments on the same. A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A); Lee v. Lee, 133 Ariz. 118, 124 (App. 1982).

Section 12-120.21(A)(1) gives the Arizona Court of Appeals jurisdiction over criminal convictions carrying life sentences after the 1989 amendment.

Paige v. Schriro · filed 2009-08-10(A)(1)

In 1989, years before Swoopes was decided, A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(1) and § 13-4031 were amended to omit the phrase, “or life imprisonment.” “The effect of this change was to give the Arizona Court of Appeals jurisdiction over criminal convictions carrying life sentences and eliminate the [Arizona] Supreme Court’s exclusive and mandatory jurisdiction.”

Section 12-120.21 does not authorize the Court of Appeals to transfer an application for a writ of error coram vobis to the Superior Court for a hearing.

State v. Sheppard · filed 1965-11-19

A reading of the jurisdiction and venue Statutes (A.R.S. § 12-120.21) applicable to this Court illustrates that we do not have authority to transfer an application for a writ such as this for hearing to the Superior Court just as we do not have authority to transfer an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus, which is similar in nature, to the Superior Court for hearing.

Section 12-120.21(A)(3) does not authorize the Court of Appeals to review a medical liability review panel’s decision before the Superior Court has determined the case.

Campbell v. Arnold · filed 1979-01-11(A)(3)

But jurisdiction to review the decisions of the medical review panels prior to determination by the Superior Court is not "necessary and proper" for the "complete exercise" of the Court of Appeals' appellate jurisdiction. A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(3). We do not find that the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to the "jurisdiction and venue" statute of the legislation.

Section 12-120.21(A)(4) gives the court of appeals jurisdiction to issue habeas corpus writs but does not authorize it to make them returnable to a superior court.

Application of Buccheri · filed 1967-08-04(A)(4)

Although the court of appeals has jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus, A.R.S. § 12-120.21, subsec. A (4), there is no statute vesting this court with authority to make such writs returnable to the superior court.

Section 12-120.21(A)(4) permits the court of appeals to issue a writ of certiorari when necessary to exercise its appellate jurisdiction.

White v. State · filed 1968-05-17(A)(4)

Deeming a writ of certiorari to the Maricopa County superior court ... necessary to the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction in this cáse, we issued a writ accordingly. A.R.S. § 12-120.21, subsec. A(4).

Section 12-120.21(A)(4) permits the Court of Appeals to issue an extraordinary writ when the matter is ultimately within its appellate jurisdiction, whether through a direct or indirect appeal, if the other requirements for the writ are met.

Shenfield v. City Court of City of Tucson, Pima County · filed 1968-07-05(A)(4)

We, therefore, decline to equate “appellate jurisdiction” with “direct appeal” for purposes of passing upon our jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs. Where a matter is ultimately cognizable by this court, by direct appeal or otherwise, we believe our discretionary intervention by extraordinary writ proceedings may be proper if other requisites for the exercise of this jurisdiction are met.

Section 12-120.21(A)(4) permits the court of appeals to consider a special action even when it lacks appellate jurisdiction over the underlying matter; review is discretionary.

State v. Aguilar · filed 1991-08-19(A)(4)

Recently, this court’s jurisdiction to hear petitions for special action has been expanded to include petitions for special action without regard to this court’s appellate jurisdiction. A.R.S. § 12-120.21. ... Treating petitioner’s petition for review under Rule 32.9(f) as a petition for special action under A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(4), this court, in the exercise of its discretion, denies review.

Section 12-120.21(A)(4) allows the court of appeals to hear special actions arising from justice or police court cases appealed to superior court, regardless of its appellate jurisdiction.

State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court · filed 1991-08-29(A)(4)

Since Baca, A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A) has been amended to expand the court of appeal’s special action jurisdiction. ... Therefore, this court has jurisdiction to hear a special action in a case originating in justice or police court that has been appealed to the superi- or court.

Subsection (A)(4) gives the Arizona Court of Appeals jurisdiction over special actions against state officers even when they are outside its appellate jurisdiction.

State Ex Rel. Hance v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles · filed 1993-10-26(A)(4)

We resolve this issue by holding that subsection (A)(4) gives us jurisdiction over this special action. ... Had the Legislature intended to limit the expansion of our jurisdiction to exclude petitions against state officers, it would have done so without the sweeping language it chose.

Section 12-120.21(A)(1) gives the court of appeals exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over special action petitions concerning actions taken by the superior court.

Lerette v. Adams · filed 1996-10-22(A)(1)

Only the court of appeals has subject matter jurisdiction to hear special action petitions concerning actions taken by the superior court. A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(1). Because Appellant filed his petitions in the wrong court, Judge Pope appropriately dismissed them.

Section 12-120.21(A)(4) gives the Court of Appeals jurisdiction over special actions arising from capital cases, even though it lacks jurisdiction over direct appeals from death sentences.

State v. Arellano · filed 2006-05-24(A)(4)

This grant to the Court of Appeals of broad jurisdiction over special actions necessarily includes special actions arising out of capital cases.

Section 12-120.21(A)(4) gives the court of appeals special action jurisdiction without transferring jurisdiction over the underlying case from the superior court.

Coffee v. Ryan-Touhill · filed 2019-06-20(A)(4)

Unlike an appeal, jurisdiction never transfers from the superior court to the court of appeals in the special action context. Compare Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 24(a) ("An appellate court retains jurisdiction of an appeal until it issues the mandate.") (emphasis added), with A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(1), (4) (conferring "[j]urisdiction [on court of appeals] to hear and determine petitions for special actions brought pursuant to the rules of procedure for special actions, without regard to its appellate jurisdiction").

Section 12-120.21 authorizes review of Industrial Commission awards only when a valid award exists.

Benites v. Industrial Commission · filed 1970-04-13

This presupposes a valid award, the validity of which should always be the first matter of inquiry when matters of doubt appear on its face.

Section 12-120.21(A)(2), together with § 23-951(D), limits review of an Industrial Commission award to affirming or setting aside the award as a whole.

Associated Grocers v. Industrial Commission · filed 1980-07-15(A)(2)

The “single award” concept is of crucial importance in Workmen’s Compensation reviews as this court is strictly limited to either affirming an award of the Industrial Commission or setting it aside. A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(2) and 23-951(D). We may not modify, affirm in part, reverse in part, or reverse and remand the award with directions.

Section 12-120.21(B) makes Division I the appropriate place for routine filings seeking review of Industrial Commission awards.

Hall v. Industrial Commission · filed 1970-09-25(B)

By the foregoing we do not intend to infer that counsel have an option in the routine filing of Industrial Commission cases; the appropriate place for filing is in Division I.

Section 12-120.21(A)(2) permits review of an Industrial Commission award when it directly determines an issue concerning a worker’s claim.

Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Industrial Commission · filed 1983-10-27(A)(2)

Strictly speaking, the definition does not necessarily limit the meaning of the word “award” as used in A.R.S. § 12-120.-21(A)(2). In addition, we have held that the term “award” for review purposes is any direct determination of an issue concerning a worker’s claim.

Section 12-120.21 does not give the court of appeals jurisdiction to charge or try a defendant in a criminal case.

Cherry v. Mendoza · filed 2023-03-21

We lack jurisdiction to charge or try a defendant in a criminal case.