Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 32
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-125 (2026)

Seals for registrants

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

A. The board shall adopt and prescribe seals for use by registrants who are required by the board to use seals. Each seal shall bear the name of the registrant and shall state the profession in which the registrant is permitted to practice and, in the case of engineering, the branch or branches of engineering in which the registrant has demonstrated proficiency, and other data the board deems pertinent.

B. Plans, specifications, plats or reports prepared by a registrant or a registrant's bona fide employee shall be issued under the registrant's seal if the board requires the registrant to use a seal.

C. It is unlawful for a registrant whose certificate has expired or has been revoked or suspended to use the seal.

D. It is unlawful for any nonregistrant to cause or permit the illegal use of a registrant's seal, signature or stamp on any document prepared by the nonregistrant.

E. If the board requires a registrant to use a seal, the registrant is responsible for all documents that the registrant signs, stamps or seals, including those documents prepared by the registrant's bona fide employee.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1958–2011 · leading case: State Bd. of Technical Reg. v. McDaniel, 326 P.2d 348 (Ariz. 1958).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Bd. of Technical Reg. v. McDaniel, 326 P.2d 348 (Ariz. 1958). · cites it 3× “” A.R.S. § 32-125, subd. B, reads: “Plans, specifications, plats or reports prepared by a registrant or his bona fide employee, shall be issued under his seal.”
North Peak Constr., LLC v. Architecture Plus, Ltd., 254 P.3d 404 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “¶ 24 Finally, Architect asserts that the trial court’s October 2009 summary judgment ruling dismissed the negligence claim and the breach of implied warranty claim on the basis of the two-year statute of limitations, A.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-125(E): 1 case
North Peak Constr., LLC v. Architecture Plus, Ltd., 254 P.3d 404 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “¶ 24 Finally, Architect asserts that the trial court’s October 2009 summary judgment ruling dismissed the negligence claim and the breach of implied warranty claim on the basis of the two-year statute of limitations, A.”
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.