Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-1101 (2026)

Weight violations; civil penalty; classification; procedures; evidence

✓ current as of May 2026

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

28-1101. Weight violations; civil penalty; classification; procedures; evidence

A. A person who violates section 28-1099, 28-1100 or 28-1102 is:

1. Subject to a civil penalty of any of the following:

(a) As prescribed in subsection B of this section.

(b) As prescribed in section 28-1102.

2. Guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor for a second violation of these sections within six months of the preceding judgment.

3. Guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor for a second conviction for a violation of these sections within one year of the preceding conviction pursuant to paragraph 2 of this subsection.

B. A court shall impose civil penalties as follows:

If the excess weight is: The minimum civil penalty is:

1,001 to 1,250 pounds $ 100.00

1,251 to 1,500 200.00

1,501 to 2,000 300.00

2,001 to 2,500 400.00

2,501 to 3,000 500.00

3,001 to 3,500 840.00

3,501 to 4,000 980.00

4,001 to 4,500 1120.00

4,501 to 4,750 1260.00

4,751 to 5,000 1400.00

5,001 and over 1400.00 plus an additional

$100 for each 1000 pounds

of excess weight

C. If an officer finds that a person has violated only the axle weight limitation and not the total weight limitation, the officer shall request the driver to shift the load, as reasonable under the circumstances, to comply with the axle weight limitation and notwithstanding section 28-1521 or this section:

1. If the driver does not comply with the request of the officer to shift the load, the driver is subject to a civil penalty.

2. If the driver complies with the axle weight limitation after shifting the load and the excess axle weight was two thousand five hundred pounds or less:

(a) The officer shall not cite the driver.

(b) The driver is not subject to a civil penalty for a violation of the axle weight limitation.

3. If the driver shifts the load but does not comply with the axle weight limitation or if the excess axle weight is more than two thousand five hundred pounds, the driver is subject to a civil penalty for a violation of the axle weight limitation.

D. If a person is arrested for violating section 28-1099 or 28-1100, the arresting officer may take the person immediately before a magistrate who is within the county in which the offense charged is alleged to have been committed and who has jurisdiction of the offense. If the person is taken before a justice of the peace, the person shall be taken before the nearest or most accessible justice of the peace with reference to the place where the arrest is made.

E. The officer or court collecting or receiving a civil penalty, fee, fine or forfeiture for a violation of section 28-1099, 28-1100 or 28-1102 shall deposit, pursuant to sections 35-146 and 35-147, the amount in the Arizona highway user revenue fund. If a civil penalty, fee or fine is collected, $10 of the civil penalty, fee or fine is deductible as reimbursement of costs from the amount collected, unless the fee or fine is less than $10. The collecting official shall deposit the deducted monies with the city, town or county treasury of the city, town or county prosecuting or processing the violation.

F. A weight certificate or any other document that evidences the receipt of goods for shipment, that is issued by a person engaged in the business of transporting or forwarding goods and that states the gross weight of the vehicle with load that is in excess of the prescribed maximum weight limitation prescribed in section 28-1099 or 28-1100 is prima facie evidence that the weight of a vehicle and load is unlawful.

G. If the commodity being carried is sold by weight, a weight certificate or any other document that evidences the receipt of goods for shipment, that is issued by a person engaged in the business of transporting or forwarding goods and that states the gross weight of the vehicle with load that is not in excess of the prescribed maximum weight limitation permitted by section 28-1100 is prima facie evidence that the gross weight of a vehicle and load is lawful. The presumption that the weight of the vehicle and load is lawful may be rebutted by the weight of the vehicle and load as shown by means of the department's stationary scale or a public weighmaster scale.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 57 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1963–2023 · leading case: Lowing v. Allstate Ins., 859 P.2d 724 (Ariz. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lowing v. Allstate Ins., 859 P.2d 724 (Ariz. 1993). · cites it 4× “2d 595, 600 (1993) (finding worker's compensation statute ambiguous as to an issue not explicitly addressed by the statute).”

Calvert v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona, 697 P.2d 684 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 2× “” We believe, however, that the statute’s silence on “other vehicle” exclusions militates against the validity of such an exclusion.”

Perez. v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637 (1971). · cites it 2× “[2] Under Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28-1143 (A), the owner or operator of a car involved in an accident need not post security as required by § 28-1142 (Supp.”

Sandoval v. Chenoweth, 428 P.2d 98 (Ariz. 1967). · cites it 4× “In so doing, the court must necessarily have determined that the "policy defense" of failure of notice of suit is not available to an insurer, under the Financial Responsibility Law, A.”

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Wilson, 782 P.2d 727 (Ariz. 1989). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 28-1101 to 28-1225, 1951 Ariz.Sess.”

Bartning v. State Farm Fire & Cas., 793 P.2d 127 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “Did the legislature, by the above provisions, intend to give an insured the right to recover damages for injuries to third persons? We think not.”

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gibbs, 678 P.2d 459 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “Under the provisions of Arizona's financial responsibility act, A.R.S. § 28-1101 et seq., all automobile liability policies issued in this state must contain minimum statutorily prescribed policy limits for bodily injury liability coverage.”

Arceneaux v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 550 P.2d 87 (Ariz. 1976). · cites it 2× “The basic question presented is whether the “household exclusion” provision in the insurance policy is wholly void or merely invalid to the extent that it conflicts with the public policy principle enunciated in the Uniform Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, ARS § 28-1101…”

Anderson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 652 P.2d 537 (Ariz. 1982). · cites it 4× “2d 145 (1963) (dealing with the Financial Responsibility Act, A.R.S. §§ 28-1101 to 28-1234, 28-1170). Therefore, the first issue which must be met in this case is the question of whether a restriction of uninsured motorist coverage by excluding some or all accidents caused by…”

Bilagody v. Thorneycroft, 607 P.2d 965 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “The “financial responsibility law” is an informal reference to the Uniform Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, A.R.S. §§ 28-1101 to 28-1225. 2 . A.R.S. § 28-1122 B permits a person aggrieved by an order or act of the director in administering the financial responsibility…”

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Bogart, 717 P.2d 449 (Ariz. 1986). · cites it 2× “However, Rocky Mountain held that the escape clause in an owner’s policy was invalid because it conflicted with the provisions of the Financial Responsibility Law, A.R.S. § 28-1101 et seq. Id., 13 Ariz.App.”

Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. McKeon, 765 P.2d 513 (Ariz. 1988). · cites it 2× “§ 28-1170 referred exclusively to liability coverage under the Arizona Uniform Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, A.R.S. §§ 28-1101 to -1225 (the Act). 1951 Ariz.”

Show all 57 citing cases →

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.