Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 28
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-441 (2026)

Duplication of records

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

A. The director may cause any records kept by the department to be duplicated.

B. Except as otherwise provided by law, duplicates are admissible in evidence in courts pursuant to court rules.  

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1968–1994 · leading case: State v. Pitts, 874 P.2d 962 (Ariz. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Pitts, 874 P.2d 962 (Ariz. 1994). · cites it 4× “, A.R.S. §§ 28-441 et seq. 3 The suspension, cancellation, revocation, or refusal of licenses referred to in A.”
Knapp v. Miller, 799 P.2d 868 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “2 § 14; A.R.S. §§ 28-441 through -454. We disagree.”
State v. Gin, 761 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “It is the suspension which is a substantive element of the offense. That element is established by the state proving the fact of suspension and Lucero’s notice of the suspension.”
McDowell v. Davis, 442 P.2d 856 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968). “§ 28-441 et seq. and § 28-471 et seq. We are also unable ■ to find any evidence to support’ the propo *40 sition that Read Mullan had knowledge of Davis’ wrongfully obtained license.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-441(A) — 1 case
State v. Gin, 761 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “It is the suspension which is a substantive element of the offense. That element is established by the state proving the fact of suspension and Lucero’s notice of the suspension.”
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.