Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-902 (2026)

Scope of article

✓ current as of May 2026

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

A. This article applies to and governs:

1. Every action to judicially review a final decision of an administrative agency except public welfare decisions pursuant to title 46, or if the act creating or conferring power on an agency or a separate act provides for judicial review of the agency decisions and prescribes a definite procedure for the review.

2. An action to review the decision at an administrative hearing as otherwise provided by statute.

B. Unless review is sought of an administrative decision within the time and in the manner provided in this article, the parties to the proceeding before the administrative agency shall be barred from obtaining judicial review of the decision. If under the terms of the law governing procedure before an agency an administrative decision becomes final because of failure to file any document in the nature of an objection, protest, petition for hearing or application for administrative review within the time allowed by the law, the decision is not subject to judicial review under the provisions of this article except for the purpose of questioning the jurisdiction of the administrative agency over the person or subject matter.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 89 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1959–2026 · leading case: Sw. Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Env't Quality, 976 P.2d 872 (Ariz. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sw. Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Env't Quality, 976 P.2d 872 (Ariz. 1999). · cites it 30× “1995), Division One followed Dann to hold that a motion for rehearing was within the scope of A.R.S. § 12-902(B) such that the failure to file a motion for rehearing precludes judicial review.”

Dioguardi v. Superior Court, 909 P.2d 481 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 20× “The trial court mistakenly concluded, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-902(B), that Dioguardi's failure to file a timely request for rehearing placed the BOMEX decision beyond judicial review.”

Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Comm'n, 132 P.3d 1187 (Ariz. 2006). · cites it 6× “§§ 12-901 to - 914 (2003), which allows thirty-five days to file an appeal. A.R.S. § 12-904(A). The provisions of the JRADA do not apply, however, if a more definite procedure is set forth in “the act creating or conferring power on an agency or a separate act.”

Grosvenor Holdings, L.C. v. Figueroa, 218 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “On the contrary, the statute’s applicability provision, •§ 12-902, and its definitions section, § 12-901, clearly and unambiguously limit the scope of the ARA’s application.”

McLeod v. Chilton, 643 P.2d 712 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 13× “Plaintiff here then is in much the same position as was the county in County of Pima, supra, since A.R.S. § 12-902 “cannot be read to confer the right to appeal from an agency’s decisions on one who has not been included among those given the right of review in the particular…”

R.L. Augustine Constr. Co. v. Peoria Unified Sch. Dist. No. 11, 936 P.2d 554 (Ariz. 1997). · cites it 8× “It further argues that proceedings conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act are subject to judicial review under the Administrative Review Act, A.R.S. § 12-902(A). While A.R.S. § 12-902(A) provides for judicial review of a final decision of an “administrative agency,” A.”

Stapert v. Arizona Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 108 P.3d 956 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “Judicial relief then is indeed barred by AR.S. § 12-902(B) (2003) 1 because a party’s failure to “scrupulously” follow the statutory procedures established for administrative remedies deprives the superior court of jurisdiction to consider the claim for relief.”

Gilbert v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 745 P.2d 617 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “of a board decision are clearly set forth in A.R.S. § 12-902(B) as follows: Unless review is sought of an administrative decision within the time and in the manner provided in this article, the parties to the proceeding before the administrative agency shall be barred from…”

Coombs v. Maricopa Cnty. Special Health Care Dist., 387 P.3d 743 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “¶ 7 Subsection (A)(1) of § 12-902 affords the superior court no jurisdiction over Coombs’s appeal because the statutory definition of “administrative agency” excludes a political subdivision such as the District.”

Arizona Bd. of Regents for & on Behalf of Univ. of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. State, Pub. Saf. Ret. Fund Manager Adm'r, 771 P.2d 880 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “We do not find such preclusion, because we conclude that the Administrative Review Act did not come into play in this case.”

Rosenberg v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 578 P.2d 168 (Ariz. 1978). · cites it 7× “The Administrative Review Act “applies to and governs every action to review judicially a final decision of an administrative agency” except the State Department of Public Welfare or those agencies where a separate act provides for judicial review of the agency decisions and it…”

Allen v. Graham, 446 P.2d 240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 10× “The plaintiff thereafter commenced an action in superior court, Pima County, seeking (1) review of the Welfare Department decision, and (2) a judgment declaring A.R.S. § 12-902, subsec. A to be unconstitutional because of exclusion of the Department of Public Welfare from its…”

Show all 89 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-902(1) — 1 case

Bellapianta v. Az Veterinary Bd. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-902(A) — 20 cases

R.L. Augustine Constr. Co. v. Peoria Unified Sch. Dist. No. 11, 936 P.2d 554 (Ariz. 1997). “It further argues that proceedings conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act are subject to judicial review under the Administrative Review Act, A.R.S. § 12-902(A). While A.R.S. § 12-902(A) provides for judicial review of a final decision of an “administrative agency,” A.”

Grosvenor Holdings, L.C. v. Figueroa, 218 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “On the contrary, the statute’s applicability provision, •§ 12-902, and its definitions section, § 12-901, clearly and unambiguously limit the scope of the ARA’s application.”

McLeod v. Chilton, 643 P.2d 712 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). “Plaintiff here then is in much the same position as was the county in County of Pima, supra, since A.R.S. § 12-902 “cannot be read to confer the right to appeal from an agency’s decisions on one who has not been included among those given the right of review in the particular…”

Medina v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 916 P.2d 1130 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).

Johnson v. Mofford, 890 P.2d 76 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-902(A)(1) — 11 cases

Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Comm'n, 132 P.3d 1187 (Ariz. 2006). “§§ 12-901 to - 914 (2003), which allows thirty-five days to file an appeal. A.R.S. § 12-904(A). The provisions of the JRADA do not apply, however, if a more definite procedure is set forth in “the act creating or conferring power on an agency or a separate act.”

Svendsen v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 323 P.3d 1179 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).

Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 165 P.3d 194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).

Rash v. Town of Mammoth, 315 P.3d 1234 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).

Anderson v. Valley Union High Sch., 270 P.3d 879 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-902(A)(2) — 2 cases

Svendsen v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 323 P.3d 1179 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).

Simms v. Arizona Racing Comm'n (Ariz. 2026).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-902(B) — 38 cases

Sw. Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Env't Quality, 976 P.2d 872 (Ariz. 1999). “1995), Division One followed Dann to hold that a motion for rehearing was within the scope of A.R.S. § 12-902(B) such that the failure to file a motion for rehearing precludes judicial review.”

Dioguardi v. Superior Court, 909 P.2d 481 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “The trial court mistakenly concluded, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-902(B), that Dioguardi's failure to file a timely request for rehearing placed the BOMEX decision beyond judicial review.”

Stapert v. Arizona Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 108 P.3d 956 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “Judicial relief then is indeed barred by AR.S. § 12-902(B) (2003) 1 because a party’s failure to “scrupulously” follow the statutory procedures established for administrative remedies deprives the superior court of jurisdiction to consider the claim for relief.”

Gilbert v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 745 P.2d 617 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “of a board decision are clearly set forth in A.R.S. § 12-902(B) as follows: Unless review is sought of an administrative decision within the time and in the manner provided in this article, the parties to the proceeding before the administrative agency shall be barred from…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-902(B)(1992) — 1 case

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.