A. A transportation board is established in the department of transportation.
B. The board consists of one member from each transportation district with a population of less than two million two hundred thousand persons according to the most recent United States decennial census and two members from each transportation district with a population of two million two hundred thousand or more persons according to the most recent United States decennial census.
C. The governor shall appoint members of the board for terms of six years pursuant to section 38-211 to expire on the third Monday in January of the appropriate year. When appointing members from a transportation district with a population of two million two hundred thousand or more persons according to the most recent United States decennial census, the governor shall take into account geographic balance within the district.
D. A person is not qualified to be a member of the board representing a transportation district if the person has not been a resident and taxpayer of this state and the county from which the person is chosen for at least five years immediately before the person's appointment.
E. The governor shall not appoint a member to serve two terms in succession. If a transportation district includes more than one county, the governor shall rotate the appointment of members for the district among the counties in the district.
F. If a member who represents a transportation district changes the member's residence to another county, the member's office becomes vacant.
G. Each member is eligible to receive compensation pursuant to section 38-611.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases, 1976–2001 · leading case:
State v. Richey, 774 P.2d 1354 (Ariz. 1989).
State v. Richey, 774 P.2d 1354 (Ariz. 1989).
· cites it 6× “§ 28-411(A), and failure to register a vehicle in Arizona, A.R.S. § 28-302(A). Defendant appealed to the Apache County Superior Court, which after a trial de novo found him guilty of both offenses.”
Sullivan v. Green Mfg. Co., 575 P.2d 811 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 6× “The provision in question was placed in the definitional portion of the statute, separate and apart from the substantive provisions relating to exemptions from motor vehicle licensing.”
State v. Ochoa, 544 P.2d 1097 (Ariz. 1976).
· cites it 2× “Although I agree with the result reached in the majority opinion, I cannot support a position which holds that the Arizona licensing and registration statutes, ARS § 28-423 and § 28-302, do not authorize "the stopping of travelers upon public highways for the purpose of…”
Chase v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 641 P.2d 1305 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 28-302. 10 . We do not find this to be the only purpose of the act and do not imply that an “uninsured motor vehicle” for purposes of the UMA is intended to exclude coverage for injuries caused by vehicles designed primarily for highway use when those vehicles are…”
State v. Richey, 762 P.2d 585 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 5× “§ 28-411(A), driving without an Arizona operator’s license, and A.R.S. § 28-302(A), failure to register a vehicle in Arizona.”
State v. Sheehan, 807 P.2d 538 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 3× “§ 28-721(A), and driving without proper registration, in violation of A.R.S. § 28-302(A). On September 19, 1989, defendant entered admissions in Superior Court to amended allegations of probation violations based upon these civil traffic offenses.”
Castillo v. Miller's Mut. Fire Ins., 25 P.3d 13 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “§ 28-1252 (1996); A.R.S. § 28-302(B)(2) (1996). Miller’s Mutual understandably argues that the Lor-al was an implement of husbandry.”
First Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Carbajal, 645 P.2d 778 (Ariz. 1982).
“A statute of this state (other than § 41-3140) which provides for central filing of, or which requires indication on a certificate of title of, such security interest in such property, including § 28-325, which requires indication thereof on a certificate of title for a vehicle…”
Landon v. Stroud (Baird), 709 P.2d 565 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“A statute of this state (other than § 44-3140) which provides for central filing of, or which requires indication on a certificate of title of, such security interest in such property, including § 28-325, which requires indication thereof on a certificate of title for a vehicle…”
Del E. Webb Cactus Dev., Inc. v. Jessup, 863 P.2d 260 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 28-302(A). Following general principles of statutory construction, Southwestern Iron and Steel Indus.”
City of Avondale v. Deere Credit, Inc., 955 P.2d 544 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“section 28-802(B), section 28-302(A) demonstrates that the Arizona legislature necessarily viewed them as motor vehicles.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-302(A) — 5 cases
State v. Richey, 774 P.2d 1354 (Ariz. 1989).
“§ 28-411(A), and failure to register a vehicle in Arizona, A.R.S. § 28-302(A). Defendant appealed to the Apache County Superior Court, which after a trial de novo found him guilty of both offenses.”
State v. Richey, 762 P.2d 585 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“§ 28-411(A), driving without an Arizona operator’s license, and A.R.S. § 28-302(A), failure to register a vehicle in Arizona.”
State v. Sheehan, 807 P.2d 538 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
“§ 28-721(A), and driving without proper registration, in violation of A.R.S. § 28-302(A). On September 19, 1989, defendant entered admissions in Superior Court to amended allegations of probation violations based upon these civil traffic offenses.”
City of Avondale v. Deere Credit, Inc., 955 P.2d 544 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“section 28-802(B), section 28-302(A) demonstrates that the Arizona legislature necessarily viewed them as motor vehicles.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-302(B) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-302(B)(2) — 1 case
Castillo v. Miller's Mut. Fire Ins., 25 P.3d 13 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“§ 28-1252 (1996); A.R.S. § 28-302(B)(2) (1996). Miller’s Mutual understandably argues that the Lor-al was an implement of husbandry.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-302(C) — 1 case
Sullivan v. Green Mfg. Co., 575 P.2d 811 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
“The provision in question was placed in the definitional portion of the statute, separate and apart from the substantive provisions relating to exemptions from motor vehicle licensing.”
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.