Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-114 (2026)

Limitation upon authority to impose treatment

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Nothing in this title shall authorize the department or any of its officers or representatives to impose on any person against his will any mode of treatment, provided that sanitary or preventive measures and quarantine laws are complied with by the person. Nothing in this title shall authorize the department or any of its officers or representatives to impose on any person contrary to his religious concepts any mode of treatment, provided that sanitary or preventive measures and quarantine laws are complied with by the person.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2022 · leading case: Arizona Cannabis Nurses Ass'n v. Arizona Dep't of Health Servs., 392 P.3d 506 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Arizona Cannabis Nurses Ass'n v. Arizona Dep't of Health Servs., 392 P.3d 506 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 10× “DISCUSSION I. AZCNA Has Shown No Error. A. Standard Of Review.”

Anderson v. State, 663 P.2d 570 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 8× “The MHSA provisions are both later and more specific, and therefore control over anything to the contrary in A.R.S. § 36-114. Within the MHSA itself, in 1979 a new introductory clause was added to A.”

Mayes v. Biden (D. Ariz. 2022). · cites it 2× “See Arizona Executive Order 2021-19; Arizona Executive 23 Order 2021-18; A.R.S. §§ 36-114, 36-184. 24 Of course, that the states possess authority over compulsory vaccination does not 25 compel the conclusion that the federal government does not.”

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.