A. The board of health of each county health department shall meet and elect from among its members a president and vice-president, and adopt rules not inconsistent with law for its procedure. The director of the local health department shall serve as secretary of the board. The board shall hold an annual meeting in July each year at which officers shall be elected for the ensuing year. Monthly and special meetings may be held on the call of the president, the director or any two members. A majority of the members constitutes a quorum. Members who fail to attend three consecutive meetings shall be considered as resigned from the board, but the board may, for good cause, grant leaves of absence to its members.
B. The board shall:
1. Advise the director and request from the director information it deems necessary.
2. Keep minutes of all meetings of the board.
3. Make rules and regulations, not inconsistent with the rules and regulations of the department of health services, for the protection and preservation of public health.
4. Advise the board of supervisors regarding suitable offices, facilities and equipment for the health department.
5. Recommend rules and regulations to the respective county boards of supervisors for adoption and enforcement in their respective counties.
C. This article does not authorize a county health department or any of its officers or representatives to impose on any person any mode of treatment against that person's will, or any examination inconsistent with the creed or tenets of any religious denomination of which the person is an adherent, provided that the person complies with sanitary and quarantine laws, rules and regulations.
Notes of Decisions
Maricopa Cnty. Health Dep't v. Harmon, 750 P.2d 1364 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 6× “Appellants note that under A.R.S. § 36-184(B)(3), local health departments may make rules and regulations for the protection and preservation of public health, but may not adopt any rule or regulation inconsistent with the rules and regulations of the Arizona Department of…”
Thomas v. Goudreault, 786 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Although we find little evidence in the record to aid us in our consideration, it appears that the licensing requirement was designed to protect the public health rather than to raise revenue.”
Marsoner v. Pima Cnty., 803 P.2d 897 (Ariz. 1991).
· cites it 4× “CONCLUSION We hold that A.R.S. §§ 36-184(B), 36-136, and 11-251 expressly give the County, acting through its Board of Supervisors, the authority under Arizona law to enact an ordinance requiring the licensing of adult amusement establishments.”
State v. Kelsall, 523 P.2d 1334 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 36-184(B) (4). It appears that the regulations complained of here were enacted by such a department under the authority of A.”
State v. Phelps, 467 P.2d 923 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 36-184, subsec. B, par. 4. (emphasis ours) See also § 11-251, subsecs.”
Marsoner v. Pima Cnty., 801 P.2d 430 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “§ 36-136(H)(l) authorizes the director of the state department of health services to adopt regulations prescribing “reasonably necessary measures for detecting, reporting, preventing and controlling communicable .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-184(B) — 2 cases
Marsoner v. Pima Cnty., 803 P.2d 897 (Ariz. 1991).
“CONCLUSION We hold that A.R.S. §§ 36-184(B), 36-136, and 11-251 expressly give the County, acting through its Board of Supervisors, the authority under Arizona law to enact an ordinance requiring the licensing of adult amusement establishments.”
State v. Kelsall, 523 P.2d 1334 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).
“A.R.S. § 36-184(B) (4). It appears that the regulations complained of here were enacted by such a department under the authority of A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-184(B)(3) — 2 cases
Maricopa Cnty. Health Dep't v. Harmon, 750 P.2d 1364 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“Appellants note that under A.R.S. § 36-184(B)(3), local health departments may make rules and regulations for the protection and preservation of public health, but may not adopt any rule or regulation inconsistent with the rules and regulations of the Arizona Department of…”
Marsoner v. Pima Cnty., 801 P.2d 430 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“§ 36-136(H)(l) authorizes the director of the state department of health services to adopt regulations prescribing “reasonably necessary measures for detecting, reporting, preventing and controlling communicable .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-184(B)(4) — 1 case
State v. Kelsall, 523 P.2d 1334 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).
“A.R.S. § 36-184(B) (4). It appears that the regulations complained of here were enacted by such a department under the authority of A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-184(B)(5) — 1 case
Marsoner v. Pima Cnty., 803 P.2d 897 (Ariz. 1991).
“CONCLUSION We hold that A.R.S. §§ 36-184(B), 36-136, and 11-251 expressly give the County, acting through its Board of Supervisors, the authority under Arizona law to enact an ordinance requiring the licensing of adult amusement establishments.”
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.