A. Except as provided in this section and subject to specific exceptions prescribed in this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title with reference to authorized emergency vehicles, the provisions of this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title applicable to the drivers of vehicles on the highways apply to the drivers of all vehicles owned or operated by the United States, this state or any county, city, town, district or other political subdivision of this state.
B. Unless specifically made applicable by law, this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title:
1. Do not apply to persons, teams, motor vehicles and other equipment while actually engaged in work on the surface of a highway.
2. Do not apply to railroad employees working on a railroad track or tracks crossing the highway.
3. Apply to persons and vehicles described in this section if they are traveling to or from work on the surface of a highway or on a railroad track or tracks crossing the highway.
Notes of Decisions
Tobel v. State, Dept. of Pub. Saf., 939 P.2d 801 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 15× “The court also rejected Tobel’s claim that A.R.S. § 28-623(B) exempted him from the traffic statutes.”
Beck v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 737 P.2d 402 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 6× “Mountain Bell argues § 28-873 is inapplicable to the facts of this case because it had a permit from the City of Phoenix which entitled it to park in the right-of-way off of the paved portion of a highway and further argues it was exempt by virtue of A.R.S. § 28-623(B) which…”
Niecikowski v. Davis, 731 P.2d 626 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 3× “Subsection B of that statute reads as follows: Unless specifically made applicable, the provisions of this chapter [Chapter 6—Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways] shall not apply to persons, teams, motor vehicles and other equipment while actually engaged in work upon the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-623(B) — 3 cases
Tobel v. State, Dept. of Pub. Saf., 939 P.2d 801 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
“The court also rejected Tobel’s claim that A.R.S. § 28-623(B) exempted him from the traffic statutes.”
Beck v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 737 P.2d 402 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“Mountain Bell argues § 28-873 is inapplicable to the facts of this case because it had a permit from the City of Phoenix which entitled it to park in the right-of-way off of the paved portion of a highway and further argues it was exempt by virtue of A.R.S. § 28-623(B) which…”
Niecikowski v. Davis, 731 P.2d 626 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“Subsection B of that statute reads as follows: Unless specifically made applicable, the provisions of this chapter [Chapter 6—Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways] shall not apply to persons, teams, motor vehicles and other equipment while actually engaged in work upon the…”
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.