Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 11

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-201

Powers of county

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The powers of a county shall be exercised only by the board of supervisors or by agents and officers acting under its authority and authority of law. It has the power to:

1. Sue and be sued.

2. Purchase and hold lands within its limits.

3. Make such contracts and purchase and hold such personal property as may be necessary to the exercise of its powers.

4. Make such orders for the disposition or use of its property as the interests of the inhabitants of the county require.

5. Levy and collect taxes for purposes under its exclusive jurisdiction as are authorized by law.

6. Determine the budgets of all elected and appointed county officers enumerated under section 11-401 by action of the board of supervisors.

B. Except for the purposes of acting as an intermediary in a license transfer or sale, a county shall not own a commercial cable television system or any other pay television system.

C. Section 11-251.05, subsection A, paragraph 1 does not authorize a county to levy and collect taxes for any purposes beyond those otherwise specifically authorized by statute.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1956–2026 · leading case: Braillard v. Maricopa County
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Braillard v. Maricopa County (2010) arizctapp · cites it 2× “Although A.R.S. § 11-201(A)(1) provides that counties have the power to sue and be sued through their boards of supervisors, no Arizona statute confers such power on MCSO as a separate legal entity.”
State v. Payne (2009) arizctapp · cites it 3× “That is significant because the broad powers extended to counties and boards of supervisors, in §§ 11-201 and 11-251 respectively, do not authorize counties to adopt ordinances under which prosecution fees may be imposed.”
Dowling v. Stapley (2008) arizctapp · cites it 4× “By June 1 of each year, the county school superintendent shall provide the county board of supervisors with estimated revenues from the state and other financial information the county board of supervisors may request. A.R.S. § 15-308 (emphasis added).”
Neil B. McGinnis Equipment Co. v. Riggs (1967) arizctapp · cites it 10× “They cite A.R.S. § 11-201: “Powers of county Sjí ¡ í{í ‡ í{í ‡ “4.”
Gorman v. Pima County (2012) arizctapp · cites it 2× “The board’s statutory powers and duties include the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal county ordinances that are necessary to carry out the duties, responsibilities, and functions of the county, § 11-251.”
Earl Edwin Gobel and Michael J. Defranco v. Maricopa County, Thomas E. Collins, David P. Stoller, and Frank Gary (1989) ca9 “His budget is set by the county board of supervisors, Ariz.Rev.Stat. §§ 11-201(A)(6), and he picks a chief deputy whose salary is set by agreement between the county attorney and the board of supervisors.”
United States v. Maricopa County (2012) azd · cites it 2× “Braillard “therefore conclude[d] MCSO is a nonjural entity and should be dismissed from this case.”
City of Tucson v. Pima County (1997) arizctapp · cites it 2× “, A.R.S. § 11-201; Associated Dairy Products v.”
Lockwood v. Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County (1956) ariz · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 11-201. The parties disagree as to the proper interpretation of A.”
United States v. Maricopa (2015) azd · cites it 2× “Maricopa County acknowledges A.R.S. § 11-201 gives it the power to determine MCSO’s budget, but maintains that aüthority is insufficient to influence or control hovv MCSO is run.”
MacK v. United States (1994) azd · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 11-201. Mack lists several early cases for the simple proposition that Arizona sheriffs regularly sue and are sued.”
Shepherd v. Platt (1993) arizctapp · cites it 2× “DISCUSSION Platt argues that because Navajo Indians and the tribe are protected by federal laws, giving them certain immunities and jurisdiction within the boundaries of the reservation, the county does not have “exclusive jurisdiction” on the reservation.”
Show all 34 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-201(2) — 1 case
Jackson v. City of Scottsdale (1980) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-201(4) — 1 case
Neil B. McGinnis Equipment Co. v. Riggs (1967) arizctapp “They cite A.R.S. § 11-201: “Powers of county Sjí ¡ í{í ‡ í{í ‡ “4.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-201(5) — 1 case
Jackson v. City of Scottsdale (1980) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-201(A) — 8 cases
Dowling v. Stapley (2008) arizctapp “By June 1 of each year, the county school superintendent shall provide the county board of supervisors with estimated revenues from the state and other financial information the county board of supervisors may request. A.R.S. § 15-308 (emphasis added).”
State v. Payne (2009) arizctapp “That is significant because the broad powers extended to counties and boards of supervisors, in §§ 11-201 and 11-251 respectively, do not authorize counties to adopt ordinances under which prosecution fees may be imposed.”
Gorman v. Pima County (2012) arizctapp “The board’s statutory powers and duties include the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal county ordinances that are necessary to carry out the duties, responsibilities, and functions of the county, § 11-251.”
Randall v. Maricopa (2016) arizctapp
State v. Flescher (2018) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-201(A)(1) — 10 cases
Braillard v. Maricopa County (2010) arizctapp “Although A.R.S. § 11-201(A)(1) provides that counties have the power to sue and be sued through their boards of supervisors, no Arizona statute confers such power on MCSO as a separate legal entity.”
United States v. Maricopa County (2012) azd “Braillard “therefore conclude[d] MCSO is a nonjural entity and should be dismissed from this case.”
Garcia v. Unknown Parties (2024) azd
Hetzel v. Pinal, County of (2025) azd
Sanchez v. Maricopa County (2025) ariz
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-201(A)(3) — 1 case
Sanchez v. Maricopa County (2025) ariz
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-201(A)(5) — 1 case
Shepherd v. Platt (1993) arizctapp “DISCUSSION Platt argues that because Navajo Indians and the tribe are protected by federal laws, giving them certain immunities and jurisdiction within the boundaries of the reservation, the county does not have “exclusive jurisdiction” on the reservation.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-201(A)(6) — 1 case
Earl Edwin Gobel and Michael J. Defranco v. Maricopa County, Thomas E. Collins, David P. Stoller, and Frank Gary (1989) ca9 “His budget is set by the county board of supervisors, Ariz.Rev.Stat. §§ 11-201(A)(6), and he picks a chief deputy whose salary is set by agreement between the county attorney and the board of supervisors.”
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.