Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 37-331 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026

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

In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "Conservation" has the same meaning prescribed in section 37-311.

2. "Existing lessee" means any of the following:

(a) The lessee who is entitled to the use of state lands at the time such lands are considered for classification and are classified as urban lands suitable for urban planning.

(b) An existing lessee who continues to lease urban lands following classification as urban lands suitable for urban planning.

3. "Local planning authorities" means any city, town or county in which urban lands suitable for urban planning are located. When urban lands that are located in an unincorporated area of a county are designated as urban lands suitable for urban planning, a city or town whose corporate boundaries are three miles or less from these lands shall be considered to be a local planning authority, together with the governing body of the county in whose jurisdiction the lands are located.

4. "Planning contractor" means the person or persons who contract with the department to formulate a development or secondary plan for urban lands suitable for urban planning.

5. "State general plan" means a policy document that addresses appropriate uses for state lands, provides a general basis for a development plan and makes policy statements related to the use and management of state lands.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1987–1993 · leading case: Havasu Heights Ranch & Dev. Corp. v. Desert Valley Wood Prods., Inc., 807 P.2d 1119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Havasu Heights Ranch & Dev. Corp. v. Desert Valley Wood Prods., Inc., 807 P.2d 1119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 37-333 to 37-334. Thus the commissioner now has land management alternatives which did not exist when the court decided Painted Desert Park.”

Havasu Heights Ranch & Dev. Corp. v. State Land Dep't, 764 P.2d 37 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 37-331 et seq. (adopted by Laws 1981,1st S.”

Campana v. Arizona State Land Dep't, 860 P.2d 1341 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “”) section 37-331 et seq. To realize maximum value of the land, the Department devised a mechanism for the installation of infrastructure (water, sewer, garbage, streets and bike paths) via a land sale, because neither the Department nor the City of Phoenix had the financial…”

Ewing v. State, 745 P.2d 947 (Ariz. 1987). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. §§ 37-331 to -338. The plan provided for the zoning, development, sale and lease of over 1400 acres of land in north Scottsdale.”

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.