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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1453 (2026)

Judicial review

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

Except as provided in section 41-1092.08, subsection H, an appeal to the superior court in Maricopa county may be taken from final decisions of the board pursuant to title 12, chapter 7, article 6.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1963–1987 · leading case: Gilbert v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 745 P.2d 617 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gilbert v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 745 P.2d 617 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “Gilbert did not seek judicial review of the board’s decision pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1453. THE PRESENT SUPERIOR COURT LITIGATION On June 6, 1983, slightly more than a year after BOMEX had revoked his medical license, Dr.”
Arizona State Bd. of Med. Examiners v. Clark, 398 P.2d 908 (Ariz. 1965). · cites it 4× “The statute governing the review in this case, A.R.S. § 32-1453, was adopted in 1952, after the adoption of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act.”
Arizona Podiatry Ass'n v. Dir. of Ins., 422 P.2d 108 (Ariz. 1966). · cites it 2× “Medicine and Surgery § 32-1453 24. Sale of Securities § 44-1984 25.”
Sarwark v. Thorneycroft, 596 P.2d 1173 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “§ 32-1054; Physicians, A.R.S. § 32-1453; Naturopathic Physicians, A.”
In Re Cutshaw, 432 P.2d 474 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 6× “The court may affirm the decision of the board or remand the case for further proceedings, or it may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because that decision is contrary to law, or is without or in excess of the…”
Meyer v. Campbell, 480 P.2d 22 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971). “…(Osteopathic Physicians); § 32-354 (Barbers) ; § 32-1054 (Collection Agencies); §§ 32-1159 and 32-1160 (Contractors); § 32-1453, as amended (Physicians) ; § 32-1554 (Naturopathic Physicians) ; § 32-1665 (Nurses). Other code sections provide for review in accordance with Title…”
Fitzpatrick v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 394 P.2d 423 (Ariz. 1964). “Fitzpatrick petitioned the superior court for a review of the action of the Medical Board pursuant to § 32-1453 A.R.S. The petition sought a reversal of the action of the Medical Board on the grounds that (1) its decision was unsupported by competent material and substantial…”
Bd. of Med. Examiners v. Schutzbank, 383 P.2d 192 (Ariz. 1963). · cites it 2× “The appeal asked for a judicial review as provided in A.R.S. § 32-1453. The petitioner and the Board filed briefs and presented oral arguments before the court, and on the 22d day of March 1960 the court entered the following order: “IT IS ORDERED that the order of the Board is…”
Bd. of Med. Examiners v. Cutshaw, 432 P.2d 474 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 4× “” (Emphasis added) A.R.S. § 32-1453, subsec. D, as amended. .”
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.