Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-901

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. "Administrative agency" or "agency" means every agency, board, commission, department or officer authorized by law to exercise rule-making powers or to adjudicate contested cases, whether created by constitutional provision or legislative enactment.  Except as provided in section 33-1905, administrative agency or agency does not include an agency in the judicial or legislative departments of the state government, any political subdivision or municipal corporation or any agency of a political subdivision or municipal corporation.

2. "Administrative decision" or "decision" means any decision, order or determination of an administrative agency that is rendered in a case, that affects the legal rights, duties or privileges of persons and that terminates the proceeding before the administrative agency.  In all cases in which a statute or a rule of the administrative agency requires or permits an application for a rehearing or other method of administrative review, and an application for a rehearing or review is made, no administrative decision of such agency is final as to the party applying for the rehearing or review until the rehearing or review is denied or the decision on rehearing or review is rendered. Administrative decision or decision does not include either:

(a) Rules, standards or statements of policy of general application issued by an administrative agency to implement, interpret or make specific the legislation enforced or administered by it unless the rule, standard or statement of policy is involved in a proceeding before the agency and its applicability or validity is in issue in the proceeding.

(b) Rules concerning the internal management of the agency and not affecting private rights or interests.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 241 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1956–2026 · leading case: Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (1999) ariz · cites it 26× “¶ 7 While Herzberg was governed by the court's understanding of the Administrative Review Act, A.R.S. §§ 12-901 to -914 (1992), see Foremost Life Insurance Co.”
Grosvenor Holdings, L.C. v. Figueroa (2009) arizctapp · cites it 8× “, dba Engle Homes (petitioners) challenge the respondent judge’s order deny *591 ing their motion for partial summary judgment in the underlying action against Pinal County (the County) and remanding this matter to the Pinal County Board of Supervisors (the Board) for further…”
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners (2005) arizctapp · cites it 8× “09(B) requires that a party appealing a decision from the Board shall exhaust the party’s administrative remedies by filing a motion for rehearing or review within thirty days after the service of the administrative decision that is subject to rehearing or review in order to be…”
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission (2006) ariz · cites it 5× “09 to the Clean Elections Fund, imposing a civil penalty of $10,000, and requiring Smith to forfeit his public office.”
R.L. Augustine Construction Co. v. Peoria Unified School District No. 11 (1997) ariz · cites it 10× “§ 41-2614, any final decision of the director of the department of administration is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Review Act, A.R.S. § 12-901 et seq. In contrast, the Board of Education’s procurement rules have no provision for judicial review.”
Bolser Enterprises, Inc. v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors (2006) arizctapp · cites it 12× “DISCUSSION ¶ 13 The Administrative Review Act (“ARA”), A.R.S. §§ 12-901 to -914 (2003), grants the superior court jurisdiction to review a “final administrative decision” when an aggrieved party files a complaint seeking such review within thirty-five days of being served with…”
Eshelman v. Blubaum (1977) arizctapp · cites it 6× “The appellee, Paul Blubaum, then Sheriff of Maricopa County, appealed the Commission’s decision to the Superior Court pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-901 et seq., the judicial review provisions of final administrative agency decisions.”
Guminski v. THE ARIZONA STATE VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINING BOARD (2001) arizctapp · cites it 6× “That statute defines “decision” as “any decision, order or determination of an administrative agency that is rendered in a case, that *183 affects the legal rights, duties or privileges of persons and that terminates the proceedings before the administrative agency.”
Medina v. Arizona Department of Transportation (1995) arizctapp · cites it 8× “A.R.S. § 12-901(2) (emphasis added). The above principle was affirmed in Rosen when this court concluded that a physician's failure to timely request a rehearing of the board's licensure decision as allowed by the board's administrative regulation prevented the superior court…”
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC (2016) arizctapp · cites it 2× “A.R.S. §§ 12-901 to -914. Absent compliance with Rule 54(b) or 54(c), such rulings are not final.”
Havasu Heights Ranch & Development Corp. v. Desert Valley Wood Products, Inc. (1990) arizctapp · cites it 4× “After reviewing the record under the Administrative Review Act, A.R.S. §§ 12-901 to 12-914, the superior court found that there was no abuse of discretion by the agency.”
Murphy v. Board of Medical Examiners (1997) arizctapp · cites it 7× ““Decision” is defined as any decision, order or determination of an administrative agency rendered in a case which affects the legal rights, duties or privileges of persons and which terminates thé proceeding before the administrative agency.”
Show all 241 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-901(1) — 24 cases
R.L. Augustine Construction Co. v. Peoria Unified School District No. 11 (1997) ariz “§ 41-2614, any final decision of the director of the department of administration is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Review Act, A.R.S. § 12-901 et seq. In contrast, the Board of Education’s procurement rules have no provision for judicial review.”
Grosvenor Holdings, L.C. v. Figueroa (2009) arizctapp “, dba Engle Homes (petitioners) challenge the respondent judge’s order deny *591 ing their motion for partial summary judgment in the underlying action against Pinal County (the County) and remanding this matter to the Pinal County Board of Supervisors (the Board) for further…”
Coombs v. Maricopa County Special Health Care District (2016) arizctapp
Boyce v. City of Scottsdale (1988) arizctapp
Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. v. City of Tucson (2016) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-901(2) — 33 cases
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (1999) ariz “¶ 7 While Herzberg was governed by the court's understanding of the Administrative Review Act, A.R.S. §§ 12-901 to -914 (1992), see Foremost Life Insurance Co.”
Guminski v. THE ARIZONA STATE VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINING BOARD (2001) arizctapp “That statute defines “decision” as “any decision, order or determination of an administrative agency that is rendered in a case, that *183 affects the legal rights, duties or privileges of persons and that terminates the proceedings before the administrative agency.”
Bolser Enterprises, Inc. v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors (2006) arizctapp “DISCUSSION ¶ 13 The Administrative Review Act (“ARA”), A.R.S. §§ 12-901 to -914 (2003), grants the superior court jurisdiction to review a “final administrative decision” when an aggrieved party files a complaint seeking such review within thirty-five days of being served with…”
Medina v. Arizona Department of Transportation (1995) arizctapp “A.R.S. § 12-901(2) (emphasis added). The above principle was affirmed in Rosen when this court concluded that a physician's failure to timely request a rehearing of the board's licensure decision as allowed by the board's administrative regulation prevented the superior court…”
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission (2006) ariz “09 to the Clean Elections Fund, imposing a civil penalty of $10,000, and requiring Smith to forfeit his public office.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-901(2)(1992) — 1 case
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (1999) ariz “¶ 7 While Herzberg was governed by the court's understanding of the Administrative Review Act, A.R.S. §§ 12-901 to -914 (1992), see Foremost Life Insurance Co.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-901(2)(a) — 1 case
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners (2005) arizctapp “09(B) requires that a party appealing a decision from the Board shall exhaust the party’s administrative remedies by filing a motion for rehearing or review within thirty days after the service of the administrative decision that is subject to rehearing or review in order to be…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-901(A) — 1 case
Minor v. Scottsdale (2022) arizctapp
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.