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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 3-901 (2026)

Definitions

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

3-901. Definitions

In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "Associate director" means the associate director of the division.

2. "Division" means the environmental services division of the Arizona department of agriculture.

3. "State agency" means any agency or political subdivision of the state.

4. "State land" includes land owned by this state or by a state agency.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1992–2007 · leading case: Roberts v. Robert, 158 P.3d 899 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Roberts v. Robert, 158 P.3d 899 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “§ 14-3101 and § 14 — 3901 are virtually identical to § 3-101 and § 3-901, respectively, of the Uniform Probate Code.”
Wallace v. Shields, 854 P.2d 1152 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “section 3-901 et seq (2) whether the Wallaces’ verified amended complaint and attachments provided evidence from which injunctive relief could reasonably be found appropriate; (3) whether A.”
Wonders v. Pima Cnty., 89 P.3d 810 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Because the Trust’s contentions are general and not based on its particular circumstances, the board’s expertise and development of a factual record are not necessary to deciding the purely legal issues presented by the Trust’s preemption and Fifth Amendment claims.”
United States v. Wilbur H. Miller, 981 F.2d 439 (9th Cir. 1992). · cites it 2× “” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 3-901(A). Miller contends that the prosecution failed to prove that he violated state law because it failed to prove that he sold a Cereus giganteus.”
Wonders v. Pima Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Because the Trust’s contentions are general and not based on its particular circumstances, the board’s expertise and development of a factual record are not necessary to deciding the purely legal issues presented by the Trust’s preemption and Fifth Amendment claims.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 3-901(A) — 1 case
United States v. Wilbur H. Miller, 981 F.2d 439 (9th Cir. 1992). “” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 3-901(A). Miller contends that the prosecution failed to prove that he violated state law because it failed to prove that he sold a Cereus giganteus.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 3-901(C)(l) — 1 case
United States v. Wilbur H. Miller, 981 F.2d 439 (9th Cir. 1992). “” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 3-901(A). Miller contends that the prosecution failed to prove that he violated state law because it failed to prove that he sold a Cereus giganteus.”
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.