Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1695 (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, final decisions of the board are subject to judicial review pursuant to title 12, chapter 7, article 6.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1958–1979 · leading case: Arizona Podiatry Ass'n v. Dir. of Ins., 422 P.2d 108 (Ariz. 1966).
Arizona Podiatry Ass'n v. Dir. of Ins., 422 P.2d 108 (Ariz. 1966). “Dispensing Opticians Brd § 32-1695 9. Electrical District § 30-511 10.”
Sarwark v. Thorneycroft, 596 P.2d 1173 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). “On the other hand, creating legislation has specifically allowed further appellate review of several administrative agencies: Dispensing Opticians, A.R.S. § 32-1695(B); Osteopathic Physicians, A.”
Meyer v. Campbell, 480 P.2d 22 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971). “The following statutes specifically provide for further appellate review: A.R.S. § 32-1695, subsec. B (Dispensing Opticians) ; § 32-1857, subsec.”
State Bd. of Dispensing Opticians v. Carp, 330 P.2d 996 (Ariz. 1958). “Section 32-1694 provides that when the board “denies, suspends or revokes a license” notice shall be given to the applicant and within thirty days thereafter the applicant may give written notice of a request for hearing which shall be had with the right of the applicant to…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1695(B) — 1 case
Sarwark v. Thorneycroft, 596 P.2d 1173 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). “On the other hand, creating legislation has specifically allowed further appellate review of several administrative agencies: Dispensing Opticians, A.R.S. § 32-1695(B); Osteopathic Physicians, 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.