Cited by

31, 2025) ( which relied on Sparks).

¶21 And this Court has consistently reaffirmed that principle: “When rights are clearly established and defined by a statute, equity has no power to change or upset such rights.” (explaining that “this principle was so well expressed” in Sparks v. Douglas & Sparks Realty Co., ); (to same effect).

The remedy provided by the medical lien statutes is exclusive because those statutes “create[] a right and also provide[] a complete and valid remedy for the right created.” See Blankenbaker, 205 Ariz. at 387 ¶ 18 ().

“When rights are clearly established and defined by a statute, equity has no power to change or upset such rights.” (noting “equity follows the law”).

8, (“When, as here, a statute ‘creates a right and also provides a complete and valid remedy for the right created, the remedy thereby given is exclusive.’”), ¶¶ 17, 20-21, -22 (App. 2013) (forcible detainer statute determines whether a party in possession is entitled to a stay pending appeal); (court cannot “graft a remedy on

When rights are clearly established and defined by a statute, equity has no power to change or upset such rights.” (trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by limiting plaintiff’s statutory remedy based on equitable considerations).

See, , (“When rights are clearly established and defined by a statute, equity has no power to change or upset such rights.”); (“Whenever the rights of parties are clearly defined and established by statutory provisions, equ

a statute ‘creates a right and also provides a complete and valid remedy for the right created, the remedy thereby given is exclusive.’” ( )).

It therefore follows that the court of appeals erred in concluding that Dr. Blankenbaker could enforce a health care provider lien against Jonovich in this action.7 When, as here, a statute “creates a right and also provides a complete and valid remedy for the right created, the remedy thereby given is exclusive.” see also Nationwide Mut.

See generally Jimenez, , Register, , ; , National Sur.

(“[W]hen a statute creates a right and also provides a complete and valid remedy for the right created, the remedy thereby given is exclusive.”); Lewis v. Midway Lumber, Inc.

Although a statutory remedy is exclusive when the statute creates both a right and a complete remedy, , A.R.S.

(“[W]hen a statute creates a right and also provides a complete and valid remedy for the right created, the remedy thereby given is exclusive.”); , (preemption where it is “clearly indicated [that there is a] single complete an

A writ of prohibition is appropriate “to prevent an inferior court from acting without or in excess of jurisdiction, where wrong, damage and injustice are likely to follow and there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy available.” , , 73 A.L.R.2d 1 ; , ; , .

has held that a writ of prohibition will issue against a lower court which does not have jurisdiction of the parties before it (D. W. Onan & , ; , ), and especially in a situation where the lower court has entered an injunction ( , ; , ).

The controlling legal principles are succinctly set forth in a , , which involved a situation practically identical with the instant case.