13-1709. Emergency response and investigation costs; civil liability; definitions
A. A person who commits an act in violation of this chapter that results in an appropriate emergency response or investigation and who is convicted of the violation may be liable for the expenses that are incurred incident to the emergency response and the investigation of the commission of the offense.
B. The court may assess and collect the expenses prescribed in subsection A. The court shall state the amount of these expenses as a separate item in any final judgment, order or decree.
C. The expenses are a debt of the person. The public agency, for profit entity or nonprofit entity that incurred the expenses may collect the debt proportionally. The liability that is imposed under this section is in addition to and not in limitation of any other liability that may be imposed. If a person is subject to liability under this section and is married, only the separate property of the person is subject to liability.
D. There shall be no duty under a policy of liability insurance to defend or indemnify any person found liable for any expenses under this section.
E. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Expenses" means reasonable costs that are directly incurred by a public agency, for profit entity or nonprofit entity that makes an appropriate emergency response to an incident or an investigation of the commission of the offense, including the costs of providing police, fire fighting, rescue and emergency medical services at the scene of the incident and the salaries of the persons who respond to the incident but excluding charges assessed by an ambulance service that is regulated pursuant to title 36, chapter 21.1, article 2.
2. "Public agency" means this state, any city, county, municipal corporation or district, any Arizona federally recognized Native American tribe or any other public authority that is located in whole or in part in this state and that provides police, fire fighting, medical or other emergency services.
Notes of Decisions
State of Arizona v. James Charles Ray (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 20× “§ 13-804 nor authorized by A.R.S. § 13-1709. He also contends the trial court could not require him to reimburse federal agencies pursuant to § 13-1709(E)(2) because the definition of “public agency” in the statute does not include federal entities.”
State v. Ray, 243 P.3d 1036 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 19× “§ 13-804 nor authorized by A.R.S. § 13-1709, He also contends the trial court could not require him to reimburse federal agencies pursuant to § 13 — 1709(E)(2) because the definition of “public agency” in the statute does not include federal entities.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1709(A): 2 cases
State v. Ray, 243 P.3d 1036 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“§ 13-804 nor authorized by A.R.S. § 13-1709, He also contends the trial court could not require him to reimburse federal agencies pursuant to § 13 — 1709(E)(2) because the definition of “public agency” in the statute does not include federal entities.”
State of Arizona v. James Charles Ray (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“§ 13-804 nor authorized by A.R.S. § 13-1709. He also contends the trial court could not require him to reimburse federal agencies pursuant to § 13-1709(E)(2) because the definition of “public agency” in the statute does not include federal entities.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1709(B): 2 cases
State v. Ray, 243 P.3d 1036 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“§ 13-804 nor authorized by A.R.S. § 13-1709, He also contends the trial court could not require him to reimburse federal agencies pursuant to § 13 — 1709(E)(2) because the definition of “public agency” in the statute does not include federal entities.”
State of Arizona v. James Charles Ray (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“§ 13-804 nor authorized by A.R.S. § 13-1709. He also contends the trial court could not require him to reimburse federal agencies pursuant to § 13-1709(E)(2) because the definition of “public agency” in the statute does not include federal entities.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1709(E)(2): 2 cases
State of Arizona v. James Charles Ray (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“§ 13-804 nor authorized by A.R.S. § 13-1709. He also contends the trial court could not require him to reimburse federal agencies pursuant to § 13-1709(E)(2) because the definition of “public agency” in the statute does not include federal entities.”
State v. Ray, 243 P.3d 1036 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“§ 13-804 nor authorized by A.R.S. § 13-1709, He also contends the trial court could not require him to reimburse federal agencies pursuant to § 13 — 1709(E)(2) because the definition of “public agency” in the statute does not include federal entities.”
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.