Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 11

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-351

Definitions

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

In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "Board" means the board of supervisors.

2. "Clerk" means the clerk of the board of supervisors.

3. "Commission" means the county employee merit system commission.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1971–2021 · leading case: Hunt v. Maricopa County Employees Merit System Commission
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hunt v. Maricopa County Employees Merit System Commission (1980) ariz · cites it 4× “We do not accept the argument of petitioner that the statute in question is merely a procedural rule to supplement the substantive right created by A.R.S. § 11-351 et seq., the County Employee Merit System.”
Pima County v. Pima County Law Enforcement Merit System Council (2005) ariz · cites it 2× “2004); the county employee merit systems, see A.R.S. §§ 11-351 to -356 (2001); the State Law Enforcement Merit System Council, see A.”
Woerth v. City of Flagstaff (1990) arizctapp · cites it 2× “The County Employee Merit System, A.R.S. §§ 11-351 through -356, authorizes judicial review of merit commission decisions pursuant to the Administrative Review Act.”
Fleming v. Pima County (1984) ariz · cites it 2× “Implicit in this is that the total damages cannot be calculated until the contract is terminated. Countering the interest of counties in avoiding stale claims and in settlement is the policy of supporting the merit based civil service system; for county employees, see A.”
Mullenaux v. Graham County (2004) arizctapp · cites it 3× “a) Administrative Procedure ¶ 11 That portion of the Arizona law dealing with “county employee merit systems” is found in chapter 2, article 10 of title 11, A.R.S. §§ 11-351 through 11-356. Section 11-356 provides: A.”
Hounshell v. White (2008) arizctapp · cites it 4× “According to Hounshell, the County's Manual specifically provides that the policies set forth therein "are not intended to be a limited merit system’ as defined by A.R.S. § 11-351 et seq." The Board, on the other hand, argues that the County has adopted a "modified” employee…”
LaWALL v. PIMA COUNTY MERIT COMMISSION And SCAMMON (2006) arizctapp · cites it 4× “Scammon was not terminated pursuant to the three-step procedure set forth in the Pima County Merit System *491 Rules, and that the Pima County Attorney’s Office never issued a written Notice of Termination.”
Maricopa County v. Gottsponer (1986) arizctapp · cites it 2× “Gottsponer appealed to the Merit System Commission as provided by the enabling legislation of A.R.S. § 11-351 et seq., as well as the Resolution of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors establishing the Merit System in Maricopa County and the Merit System Rules.”
Romley v. Arpaio (2002) arizctapp · cites it 2× “The Board empowered the Commission to hear and decide employee appeals regarding suspensions, demotions, and dismissals.”
Sackey v. Cochise County Merit Commission (1979) arizctapp · cites it 2× “” The merit commission is an agency of the county, A.R.S. § 11-351, et seq., and therefore not an “agency” as defined in the Administrative Review Act.”
Holohan v. Mahoney (1971) ariz “§§ 11-351, et seq., A.R.S., enacted after Kunkle was hired, provide for a county employees merit system.”
Osorio v. Ross (2021) arizctapp · cites it 2× “1 A 1 See A.R.S. §§ 11-351 through 11-356 (establishing a county’s authority to create an administrative commission to hear employment appeals).”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.