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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-451 (2026)

Maintaining records

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

A. If pursuant to this title an application or record is required to be filed, an index is required to be maintained or a record is required to be compiled and if the director adopts rules to provide that the filing, indexing or compilation be accomplished by use of a computer so that on inquiry to the computer it is capable of disclosing and reproducing all information required by law, the director is not required to file, compile or index records other than by the use of a computer.

B. If a computer is used, the director shall preserve applications or records from which the information was obtained for as long as required by law or until a new application is filed by an applicant or a new record is received and the application or record is no longer needed to carry out the provisions of this title.

C. The director is not required to store signatures on applications or on records.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1964–2014 · leading case: Campbell v. Chatwin, 428 P.2d 108 (Ariz. 1967).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Campbell v. Chatwin, 428 P.2d 108 (Ariz. 1967). · cites it 11× “B or A.R.S. § 28-451 (Ryan). In each cause the Highway Department urged that a failure to exhaust administrative remedies should deny the plaintiffs access to the Superior Court.”
Svendsen v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 323 P.3d 1179 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “It provided a right of appeal by referring to the former A.R.S. § 28-451, which granted a person whose license had been suspended the right to “a hearing in the matter in the superior court.”
Campbell v. Superior Court, in & for Cty. of Gila, 470 P.2d 718 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 17× “” A.R.S. § 28-451 provides: “Right of appeal to court A person denied a license, or whose license has been cancelled, suspended or revoked by the department except where the cancellation or revocation is mandatory under the provisions of this chapter, shall have the right to…”
Sarwark v. Thorneycroft, 596 P.2d 1173 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 4× “The hearing officer ordered the appellant’s license to be suspended for the statutory period. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-691(F), which grants a right of superior court review to persons whose licenses have been suspended under the Implied Consent Law in the same manner as review is…”
Koller v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 988 P.2d 128 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “§ 28-3317 was formerly numbered A.R.S. § 28-451. Although the MVD cites § 28-451 in its brief, § 28-3317 was in effect at the time Roller filed her motion for a trial de novo.”
State v. Birmingham, 392 P.2d 775 (Ariz. 1964). · cites it 2× “In our former decision in this cause, we construed' as constitutional the statute A.R.S. § 28-451 and declared under what circumstances an automobile driver’s license was subject to suspension.”
Bucciarelli v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 800 P.2d 54 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 10× “That chapter and article of Title 12, entitled “Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions,” states: [Judicial review] applies to and governs every action to review judicially a final decision of an administrative agency except .”
Martin v. Super. Ct. in & for Cty. of Maricopa, 660 P.2d 859 (Ariz. 1983). · cites it 2× “The scope of the hearing is very limited and the primary evidence is the arresting officer’s report which is certified and subject to penalty for perjury.”
State v. Birmingham, 390 P.2d 103 (Ariz. 1964). · cites it 2× “Actions were commenced by the appel-lees David Birmingham and Myron Bradley in the Superior Court of Maricopa County as authorized by A.R.S. § 28-451 to determine whether their automobile drivers’ licenses were subject to suspension.”
Meyer v. Campbell, 480 P.2d 22 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 5× “The appellant instituted these proceedings in superior court pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-451 to seek review of the appellee’s suspension of his driver’s license.”
Campbell v. Superior Court, 502 P.2d 161 (Ariz. 1972). · cites it 4× “) A.R.S. § 28-451 provides: “A person . . .”
Application of Hathcock, 450 P.2d 419 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 2× “2 The special right to appeal contained within this chapter dealing with the suspension and revocation of drivers’ licenses, A.R.S. § 28-451, specifically excepts from its provisions an order of revocation which is “mandatory.”
Show all 17 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.