A. The Arizona department of agriculture is established consisting of the following divisions:
1. The animal services division, which is responsible for milk, dairy, livestock and aquaculture regulation, the state veterinarian, meat, poultry and egg inspection and performing the administrative functions authorized or contracted pursuant to law for the Arizona beef council.
2. The plant services division, which is responsible for entomological services.
3. The environmental services division, which is responsible for regulating seed, feed and agricultural chemicals, including pesticides and fertilizers, and for native plant protection.
4. The weights and measures services division, which is responsible for the inspection, testing and licensing of commercial weighing, measuring and counting devices.
5. The pest management division, which is responsible for regulating pest management and pest management services as defined in section 3-3601.
6. The citrus, fruit and vegetable division, which is responsible for the citrus, fruit and vegetable standardization and produce safety program under chapter 3, articles 2, 4, 4.1 and 4.3 of this title.
B. The following are established in addition to and separate from the divisions of the department:
1. The state agricultural laboratory.
2. The office of agriculture safety.
3. The office of inspections.
4. The office of commodity development and promotion.
C. The department shall have a central administrative service office providing:
1. Data processing, accounting and budgeting, records management, publications, property control and personnel services and training.
2. A program to cross-train appropriate personnel to enable them to perform similar functions or comparable work for different administrative units in the department.
Notes of Decisions
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 181 P.3d 219 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “¶ 52 The City agrees that its argument in this case “appears somewhat inconsistent” with Whiteco Metrocom , but nevertheless argues that this court “apparently did not consider [Tucson Code] § 3-102(A)” in Whiteco Metrocom . The City contends the billboards at issue here are…”
Griffith v. Faltz, 785 P.2d 119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“The authors of the Uniform Act were apparently concerned, not with providing a shield of immunity for individual unit owners, but with eliminating any requirement that each individual unit owner be named in a lawsuit against the association.”
Matter of Est. of Wood, 710 P.2d 476 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“§ 3-102 (A.R.S. § 14-3102) also provide guidance.”
Hunt v. Wood, 710 P.2d 476 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“§ 3-102 (A.R.S. § 14-3102) also provide guidance.”
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., No. 2 CA-CV 2007-0104 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2008).
· cites it 2× “¶52 The City agrees that its argument in this case “appears somewhat inconsistent” with Whiteco Metrocom, but nevertheless argues that this court “apparently did not consider [Tucson Code] § 3-102(A)” in Whiteco Metrocom. The City contends the billboards at issue here are…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 3-102(A): 2 cases
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 181 P.3d 219 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“¶ 52 The City agrees that its argument in this case “appears somewhat inconsistent” with Whiteco Metrocom , but nevertheless argues that this court “apparently did not consider [Tucson Code] § 3-102(A)” in Whiteco Metrocom . The City contends the billboards at issue here are…”
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., No. 2 CA-CV 2007-0104 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2008).
“¶52 The City agrees that its argument in this case “appears somewhat inconsistent” with Whiteco Metrocom, but nevertheless argues that this court “apparently did not consider [Tucson Code] § 3-102(A)” in Whiteco Metrocom. The City contends the billboards at issue here are…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 3-102(a)(4): 1 case
Griffith v. Faltz, 785 P.2d 119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“The authors of the Uniform Act were apparently concerned, not with providing a shield of immunity for individual unit owners, but with eliminating any requirement that each individual unit owner be named in a lawsuit against the association.”
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.