Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 36
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-102 (2026)

Department of health services; director; appointment; compensation

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

A. There is established a department of health services.

B. The direction, operation and control of the department are the responsibility of the director.

C. The director shall be appointed by the governor pursuant to section 38-211 and shall serve at the pleasure of the governor. The director shall be a person who has:

1. Administrative experience in the private sector, with progressively increasing responsibilities.

2. An educational background that prepares the director for the administrative responsibilities assigned to the position.

3. Health related experience which insures familiarity with the peculiarities of health problems.

D. Compensation for the director shall be established pursuant to section 38-611.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1942–2016 · leading case: Arnold v. Arizona Dep't of Health Servs., 775 P.2d 521 (Ariz. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arnold v. Arizona Dep't of Health Servs., 775 P.2d 521 (Ariz. 1989). · cites it 4× “The trial court concluded that DHS must provide a full continuum of care for all class members, including, but not limited to: inpatient care, case management, residential services, day treatment, outreach, medications, outpatient counseling, crisis stabilization, mobile crises…”
Chamberlain v. Mathis, 729 P.2d 905 (Ariz. 1986). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 36-102(B). Mathis was to oversee “[p]rogram coordination, evaluation and development” and was charged with administering the department’s accounting functions.”
Lake Havasu City v. Mohave Cnty., 675 P.2d 1371 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. §§ 36-102, 36-104. Articles one and two of the Act pertain to the health services provided by the Department of Health and the overall state health planning scheme.”
Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Brnovich, 172 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (D. Ariz. 2016). “” § 36-102(B). Christ is responsible for performing “all duties necessary to carry out the functions and responsibilities of the department,” § 36 — 136(A)(2); for “[a]d-minister[ing] and enforc[ing] the laws relating to health and sanitation and the rules of [ADHS],” '§…”
Goddard v. Fields, 150 P.3d 262 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “¶37 In summary, I believe the attorney general, as a constitutional executive officer, should be absolutely immune from lawsuits arising from communications made by him in the performance of his official duties.”
Wieman v. Roysden, 802 P.2d 432 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). “84, § 2; Code 1939, § 36-102. Prior to 1980, these statutory forfeiture provisions defined a maximum percentage rate, which related to the rate ceiling then defined in the general usury statute.”
Seargeant v. Smith, 163 P.2d 680 (Ariz. 1945). “Appellee Smith filed his complaint in the court below setting forth each transaction; that is, the amount of money paid by appellant Seargeant and the amount repaid by appellee Smith, alleging that the sums paid by Smith and received by Seargeant as consideration for the options…”
Houchard v. Berman, 290 P.2d 735 (Ariz. 1955). “The motion was granted and judgment rendered accordingly. Plaintiff appeals from that part of the judgment awarding defendant relief on his counterclaim.”
Daily Mines Co. v. Catalina Consol. Copper Co., 124 P.2d 320 (Ariz. 1942). “Such being the case, plaintiff failed to allege that, in the language of section 36-102, Arizona Code 1939, defendant did “directly or indirectly take or receive .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-102(B) — 2 cases
Chamberlain v. Mathis, 729 P.2d 905 (Ariz. 1986). “A.R.S. § 36-102(B). Mathis was to oversee “[p]rogram coordination, evaluation and development” and was charged with administering the department’s accounting functions.”
Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Brnovich, 172 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (D. Ariz. 2016). “” § 36-102(B). Christ is responsible for performing “all duties necessary to carry out the functions and responsibilities of the department,” § 36 — 136(A)(2); for “[a]d-minister[ing] and enforc[ing] the laws relating to health and sanitation and the rules of [ADHS],” '§…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-102(C) — 1 case
Chamberlain v. Mathis, 729 P.2d 905 (Ariz. 1986). “A.R.S. § 36-102(B). Mathis was to oversee “[p]rogram coordination, evaluation and development” and was charged with administering the department’s accounting functions.”
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.