A. Monies collected pursuant to this article shall be deposited in the marketing commission's or marketing committee's accounts to be administered and disbursed by the commission or committee for the purposes prescribed in this article. Monies collected pursuant to a marketing order or marketing agreement may not be used for any purpose other than the order or agreement.
B. The monies in a marketing commission or marketing committee account may be invested pursuant to section 35-313. Interest earned on these monies shall be credited to the marketing commission or marketing committee account.
C. If monies are unexpended at the end of a fiscal period, the marketing commission or marketing committee shall carry the monies forward to the next fiscal period.
D. If the marketing order or marketing agreement is terminated and the expenses are paid, monies shall be returned to the affected persons pro rata unless the amounts are too small to be practicable or may be expended by the marketing commission or marketing committee on any program consistent with the marketing order or marketing agreement.
E. No specific legislative appropriation is necessary to operate a marketing commission or marketing committee.
Notes of Decisions
Berthot v. Sec. Pac. Bank, 823 P.2d 1326 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 17× “§ 3-419) has displaced the common law negligence claim in the circumstances presented in this case and that the statute of limitations on Berthot’s conversion claim had run.”
Cont'l Bank v. Wa-Ho Truck Brokerage, 595 P.2d 206 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 2× “Based upon these rules of evidence, we hold the matters contained in the affidavits were admissible in evidence as expert testimony and therefore the trial court should have considered them in ruling on the motion for summary judgment. *419 This, then, brings us to the merits of…”
Cook v. Great W. Bank & Trust, 685 P.2d 145 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“§ 3-419) which provides in part: “An instrument is converted when: * * * * * * “3.”
Citibank v. Van Velzer, 982 P.2d 833 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“If an instrument is issued for value given for the benefit of a party to the instrument (“accommodated party”) and another party to the instrument (“accommodation party”) signs the instrument for the purpose of incurring liability on the instrument without being a direct benefi…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 3-419(3) — 3 cases
Berthot v. Sec. Pac. Bank, 823 P.2d 1326 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
“§ 3-419) has displaced the common law negligence claim in the circumstances presented in this case and that the statute of limitations on Berthot’s conversion claim had run.”
Cont'l Bank v. Wa-Ho Truck Brokerage, 595 P.2d 206 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).
“Based upon these rules of evidence, we hold the matters contained in the affidavits were admissible in evidence as expert testimony and therefore the trial court should have considered them in ruling on the motion for summary judgment. *419 This, then, brings us to the merits of…”
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.