Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 3
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 3-402 (2026)

Policy or purpose

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Marketing agricultural products of this state is in the public interest. The policy and purpose of this article are to promote the general welfare of this state by enabling and encouraging fresh fruit and vegetable producers and shippers to help themselves. This state will benefit by ensuring the availability of high quality fruit and vegetables and in establishing orderly, equitable, efficient and unhampered marketing, grading and standardizing of the commodities as well as providing for research, promotion and educational programs involving fresh fruit and vegetables.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case: State v. West, No. 1 CA-CR 24-0611 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2026).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. West, No. 1 CA-CR 24-0611 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2026). “Admin § 3-402(D), Record Series # 40(a) (current retention schedule requiring retention of the verbatim record in non-capital criminal cases for “20 years from the date of sentencing or other final order of the court, unless a transcript is prepared”).”
State v. Loff, No. 1 CA-CR 13-0535 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2014). “Pursuant to Arizona Code of Judicial Administration § 3-402 (2014), which is the same now as it was in 2012, the superior court destroyed the confidential criminal history report -- which would have allowed us to review whether Loff’s prior felony convictions were indeed…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 3-402(D): 1 case
State v. West, No. 1 CA-CR 24-0611 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2026). “Admin § 3-402(D), Record Series # 40(a) (current retention schedule requiring retention of the verbatim record in non-capital criminal cases for “20 years from the date of sentencing or other final order of the court, unless a transcript is prepared”).”
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.