A. If a law enforcement officer is demoted or terminated as the result of an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer reversing the decision or recommendation of a hearing officer, administrative law judge or appeals board where the finding states that there was no just cause for the demotion or termination, the law enforcement officer may bring an action in superior court for a hearing de novo on the demotion or termination.
B. If a law enforcement officer is demoted or terminated by an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer where there is no hearing officer, administrative law judge or appeals board to review the demotion or termination, the law enforcement officer may bring an action in superior court to review the agency's file. If the court finds from a review of the file that there was no just cause for the demotion or termination, the officer is entitled to a hearing de novo on the demotion or termination.
C. If the superior court finds that just cause for a demotion or termination did not exist, the court shall order the officer reinstated to the officer's previous position with the law enforcement agency and may award to the law enforcement officer monetary damages that shall not exceed the officer's combined total of wages and benefits during the period of imposed disciplinary action that was lost as a result of the demotion or termination.
D. An action pursuant to subsection A or B of this section shall be commenced within thirty-five calendar days after a copy of the decision sought to be reviewed is served on the law enforcement officer.
E. In an action pursuant to subsection A or B of this section the court may award the successful party reasonable attorney fees as set forth in section 12-341.01, subsection B and shall award the successful party all costs pursuant to section 12-341.
F. This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is employed as an at will employee:
1. As a police chief or an assistant police chief in a law enforcement agency.
2. By an agency of this state.
Notes of Decisions
Lewis v. Arizona State Pers. Bd., 379 P.3d 227 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “See AR.S. § 38-1107(A). Consequently, the Department is an agency and is not obligated to apply the same deferential standard of review as this Court or the superior court when reviewing the recommendations of the appeals board or the hearing officer.”
MacRae v. MacRae, 112 P.2d 213 (Ariz. 1941).
“Section 38-1107, Arizona Code 1939. The defendant raised many defenses to the action, but we think we need consider only one.”
Minor v. Scottsdale (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 9× “¶12 No provision of A.R.S. § 38-1107 prescribes the manner of notification required to effectuate service.”
Veach v. Chandler (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 8× “See A.R.S. § 38-1107. Chandler denied Veach’s request.”
Lincoln v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “CONCLUSION ¶16 We vacate the order of the superior court and remand for entry of an order reinstating Lincoln and for further action under A.R.S. § 38-1107(C).9 Lincoln requests an award of attorneys’ fees and costs on 8 It does not appear that the Director specifically…”
Hernandez v. Phoenix, City of (D. Ariz. 2020).
· cites it 2× “Arizona Revised Statutes § 38-1107 authorizes 28 judicial review in two instances.”
Blunt v. Gilbert, Town of (D. Ariz. 2024).
· cites it 2× “2022); 12 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-1107 (A)–(B). 13 Defendants argue that neither of these scenarios are present here.”
Flath v. Neal, 159 P.2d 617 (Ariz. 1945).
“Our Section 38-1107, Arizona Code Annotated 1939, provides that “When there is a deficiency of assets in the hands of an executor or administrator, and the decedent, in his lifetime, has conveyed or transferred any property, or any rights or interests therein with intent to…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-1107(A) — 3 cases
Lewis v. Arizona State Pers. Bd., 379 P.3d 227 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“See AR.S. § 38-1107(A). Consequently, the Department is an agency and is not obligated to apply the same deferential standard of review as this Court or the superior court when reviewing the recommendations of the appeals board or the hearing officer.”
Minor v. Scottsdale (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
“¶12 No provision of A.R.S. § 38-1107 prescribes the manner of notification required to effectuate service.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-1107(B) — 1 case
Veach v. Chandler (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“See A.R.S. § 38-1107. Chandler denied Veach’s request.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-1107(C) — 1 case
Lincoln v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“CONCLUSION ¶16 We vacate the order of the superior court and remand for entry of an order reinstating Lincoln and for further action under A.R.S. § 38-1107(C).9 Lincoln requests an award of attorneys’ fees and costs on 8 It does not appear that the Director specifically…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-1107(D) — 1 case
Minor v. Scottsdale (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
“¶12 No provision of A.R.S. § 38-1107 prescribes the manner of notification required to effectuate service.”
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.