Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 15
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-1625 (2026)

General powers of board as body corporate

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The Arizona board of regents is a body corporate with perpetual succession. The board has jurisdiction and control over the universities.

B. The board may:

1. Adopt a corporate seal.

2. Contract.

3. Sue and be sued.

4. Purchase, receive, hold, make and take leases and long-term leases of and sell real and personal property for the benefit of this state and for the use of the institutions under its jurisdiction.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: Kromko v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 165 P.3d 168 (Ariz. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kromko v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 165 P.3d 168 (Ariz. 2007). · cites it 4× “" A.R.S. § 15-1625(A) (2002) (emphasis added).”
Lazarescu v. Arizona State Univ., 230 F.R.D. 596 (D. Ariz. 2005). · cites it 5× “Instead, pursuant to A.R.S. § 15-1625, that authority is vested with the AZBR, which oversees ASU.”
Spears v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 372 F. Supp. 3d 893 (D. Ariz. 2019). · cites it 2× “As the Court has previously found probable cause existed to arrest Spears, the Court finds Spears has failed to state a claim for false arrest upon which relief may be granted and will dismiss this claim. X. Claims Against the State or State Agencies The ABOR has been named as a…”
Kromko v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 146 P.3d 1016 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “") section 15-1625(A) (2002); see 1945 Ariz.”
Daniel v. Am. Bd. of Emergency Med., 237 F. Supp. 2d 336 (W.D.N.Y. 2002). “The Arizona Legislature has granted the ABOR broad authority to act in furtherance of Arizona’s state universities and other educational institutions, including the ability to make contracts and to sue and be sued, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-1625 .B.2 and 3, the authority to…”
Smith v. Dep't of Educ., 158 F. App'x 821 (9th Cir. 2005). “§ 15-1626, and the Arizona Board of Regents is the proper party, see Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 15-1625(3). The district court properly dismissed Smith’s ADA claim against the Board of Regents because it sought injunctive relief that reached far beyond what would be needed to cure Smith’s…”
Klein v. Arizona State Univ. Walter Cronkite Sch. of Journalism & Mass Commc'n, No. 2:20-cv-01982 (D. Ariz. Dec. 17, 2020). · cites it 7× “12 Plaintiff argues A.R.S. § 15-1625 indicates that the state of Arizona has consented 13 to suit in federal court.”
State v. Abor, No. 1 CA-TX 20-0003 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2021). · cites it 4× “Count III claimed the property should carry ad valorem taxes because ABOR is not “receiving and holding” the property as required by § 15-1625, which allows ABOR to enter into leases and long-term leases “for the benefit of this state and for the use of the institutions under…”
State of Arizona v. Az Bd. of Regents, 253 Ariz. 6 (Ariz. 2022). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 15-1625(B)(4). The Attorney General alleges separate bases for Counts II and III, which we address in turn, concerning how ABOR exceeded its lawful authority in entering the Omni Deal.”
Zamora v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, No. 2:22-cv-01583 (D. Ariz. July 10, 2023). · cites it 4× “Instead, pursuant to 13 A.R.S. § 15-1625, that authority is vested with the [ABOR], which oversees ASU.”
Monteleone v. Univ. of Arizona Dean of Student's Off., No. 4:20-cv-00189 (D. Ariz. Jan. 11, 2021). · cites it 3× “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-1625 (A) (stating that the “board has jurisdiction 2 and control over the universities”); Ariz.”
Tappan v. Abor, No. 1 CA-CV 20-0114 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2020). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 15-1625. 2 TAPPAN v. ABOR Decision of the Court Dean Kevin Trainor.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-1625(3): 4 cases
Smith v. Dep't of Educ., 158 F. App'x 821 (9th Cir. 2005). “§ 15-1626, and the Arizona Board of Regents is the proper party, see Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 15-1625(3). The district court properly dismissed Smith’s ADA claim against the Board of Regents because it sought injunctive relief that reached far beyond what would be needed to cure Smith’s…”
Gerow v. United States Dep't of Just., No. 2:23-cv-01059 (D. Ariz. Jan. 12, 2024).
Zamora v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, No. 2:22-cv-01583 (D. Ariz. July 10, 2023). “Instead, pursuant to 13 A.R.S. § 15-1625, that authority is vested with the [ABOR], which oversees ASU.”
Bryfogle v. Kartchner, 158 F. App'x 842 (9th Cir. 2005).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-1625(A): 2 cases
Kromko v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 165 P.3d 168 (Ariz. 2007). “" A.R.S. § 15-1625(A) (2002) (emphasis added).”
Kromko v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 146 P.3d 1016 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “") section 15-1625(A) (2002); see 1945 Ariz.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-1625(A)(6): 1 case
Kromko v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 165 P.3d 168 (Ariz. 2007). “" A.R.S. § 15-1625(A) (2002) (emphasis added).”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-1625(B)(3): 8 cases
Spears v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 372 F. Supp. 3d 893 (D. Ariz. 2019). “As the Court has previously found probable cause existed to arrest Spears, the Court finds Spears has failed to state a claim for false arrest upon which relief may be granted and will dismiss this claim. X. Claims Against the State or State Agencies The ABOR has been named as a…”
Alozie v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, No. 2:16-cv-03944 (D. Ariz. Jan. 7, 2020).
Alozie v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, No. 2:16-cv-03944 (D. Ariz. Feb. 20, 2020).
Klein v. Arizona State Univ. Walter Cronkite Sch. of Journalism & Mass Commc'n, No. 2:20-cv-01982 (D. Ariz. Dec. 17, 2020). “12 Plaintiff argues A.R.S. § 15-1625 indicates that the state of Arizona has consented 13 to suit in federal court.”
Alozie v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, No. 2:16-cv-03944 (D. Ariz. Nov. 30, 2021).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-1625(B)(4): 2 cases
State of Arizona v. Az Bd. of Regents, 253 Ariz. 6 (Ariz. 2022). “” A.R.S. § 15-1625(B)(4). The Attorney General alleges separate bases for Counts II and III, which we address in turn, concerning how ABOR exceeded its lawful authority in entering the Omni Deal.”
State v. Abor, No. 1 CA-TX 20-0003 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2021). “Count III claimed the property should carry ad valorem taxes because ABOR is not “receiving and holding” the property as required by § 15-1625, which allows ABOR to enter into leases and long-term leases “for the benefit of this state and for the use of the institutions under…”
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.