Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-913 (2026)
Appellate review
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The final decision, order, judgment or decree of the superior court entered in an action to review a decision of an administrative agency may be appealed to the supreme court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 94
cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case: Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC, 380 P.3d 659 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC, 380 P.3d 659 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “§ 12-1873(A) (addressing appellate jurisdiction over “certification or refusal to certify a class action”); A.”
Svendsen v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 323 P.3d 1179 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “¶8 The department is correct, however, that an appeal lies to this court under § 12-913 of the ARA. See State ex rel. Ross v.”
Arizona Cannabis Nurses Ass'n v. Arizona Dep't of Health Servs., 392 P.3d 506 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “3 ¶ 7 AZCNA appealed to the superior court, arguing DHS lacked the authority to require the Conditions and that they violated the constitutional rights of individuals with PTSD. After briefing and oral argument, the court rejected AZCNA’s arguments and affirmed DHS’ final…”
Sarwark v. Thorneycroft, 596 P.2d 1173 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). “§ 28-451, appellant sought and obtained a superi- or court review of that suspension order.”
Wassef v. Arizona State Bd. of Dental Examiners ex rel. Hugunin, 393 P.3d 151 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “See A.R.S. § 12-904(A). The superior court affirmed the Board’s decision, and Wassef timely appealed.”
Gaveck v. Arizona State Bd. of Podiatry Examiners, 215 P.3d 1114 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “Gaveck unsuccessfully moved for rehearing and/or review of the Board’s decision, and he then sought judicial review in superior court.”
Carlson v. Arizona State Pers. Bd., 153 P.3d 1055 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “We *430 have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-913 and -2101(B) (2003). DISCUSSION ¶ 12 On appeal, Carlson argues that the Board erred by affirming his dismissal for reasons other than those given by ADEQ and set forth in the Notice of Charges of Misconduct and Notice of…”
Lowe v. Pima Cnty., 177 P.3d 1214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “The Marks’ estates are not parties to this appeal. 3 . Although the Lowes cite generally A.”
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Comm'n, 229 P.3d 242 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “In a minute entry filed August 6, 2007, the court affirmed ANSAC’s determination that the River was not navigable as of February 14, 1912.”
Wallace Imports, Inc. v. Howe, 673 P.2d 961 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “Howe has appealed pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-913. Although a number of issues are raised on appeal, the first two, involving the scope of review and abuse of discretion by the trial court, are dispositive of this appeal.”
Hirsch v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 352 P.3d 925 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 15, Section 17, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12-913 and - 2101(A)(1). DISCUSSION ¶ 17 On appeal, Appellants do not contest the Commission’s conclusion that they offered and sold securities subject to regulation under the ASA.”
Comm. FOR Just. & FAIRNESS v. Arizona Sec'y of State's Off., 332 P.3d 94 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “We have jurisdiction pursuant to AR.S. §§ 12-913 and 12-2101(A)(1). ANALYSIS ¶ 14 In its opening brief, MCAO raises two issues for review: (1) whether CJF qualifies as a political committee that must comply with Arizona’s political committee registration and disclosure…”
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.