A. The department shall collect the following fees:
1. One hundred fifty dollars for each thirty day oversize only envelope permit.
2. Five hundred dollars for a thirty day oversize and overweight envelope permit.
3. Seven hundred fifty dollars for an annual oversize only envelope permit.
4. One thousand five hundred dollars for an annual oversize and overweight envelope permit.
5. Fifty dollars for each power unit that is added and that exceeds the original number of units on the envelope permit as issued.
6. Twenty-five dollars for reissuing an envelope permit to reflect a change in the envelope permit holder's name, address or substitute power units if the reissued permit does not contain a change in the number of power units or the date of expiration.
B. The director shall deposit, pursuant to sections 35-146 and 35-147, twenty-five per cent of the fees collected pursuant to this section in the state highway fund established by section 28-6991. Subject to legislative appropriation, the director shall use monies deposited in the state highway fund pursuant to this section to carry out the duties imposed by this article.
Notes of Decisions
Perez. v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637 (1971).
· cites it 6× “Nor are there provisions requiring drivers who have caused accidents to attend some kind of driver improvement course, a technique that is not unfamiliar in sentencing for traffic offenses.”
Farmer v. Killingsworth, 424 P.2d 172 (Ariz. 1967).
· cites it 8× “If, prior to the date that the superintendent would otherwise suspend license and registration or nonresident’s operating privilege under § 28-1142, there is filed with the superintendent evidence satisfactory to him that the person who would otherwise have to file security has…”
Ordway v. Pickrell, 543 P.2d 444 (Ariz. 1975).
· cites it 6× “§ 28-1142 to embody within it the concept of proof of financial responsibility for the future and made compliance therewith obligatory upon all operators and owners of vehicles involved in an accident within this state unless they fell within one of the stated exceptions listed…”
Heard v. Farmers Ins. Exch. Co., 496 P.2d 619 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972).
“This section shall not apply under the conditions stated in § 28-1143 or to any of the following : “1.”
Nat'l Union Ins. v. Chatterton, 448 P.2d 873 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 28-1143, subsec. A (3). On this form, James Marks affirmatively answered the question on the SR 1 inquiring as to whether he had a liability insurance policy “in effect” at the time of the accident.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-1143(A) — 1 case
Ordway v. Pickrell, 543 P.2d 444 (Ariz. 1975).
“§ 28-1142 to embody within it the concept of proof of financial responsibility for the future and made compliance therewith obligatory upon all operators and owners of vehicles involved in an accident within this state unless they fell within one of the stated exceptions listed…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-1143(A)(4) — 1 case
Ordway v. Pickrell, 543 P.2d 444 (Ariz. 1975).
“§ 28-1142 to embody within it the concept of proof of financial responsibility for the future and made compliance therewith obligatory upon all operators and owners of vehicles involved in an accident within this state unless they fell within one of the stated exceptions listed…”
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.