Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 38
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-431.05 (2026)

Meeting held in violation of article; business transacted null and void; ratification

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

A. All legal action transacted by any public body during a meeting held in violation of any provision of this article is null and void except as provided in subsection B.

B. A public body may ratify legal action taken in violation of this article in accordance with the following requirements:

1. Ratification shall take place at a public meeting within thirty days after discovery of the violation or after such discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence.

2. The notice for the meeting shall include a description of the action to be ratified, a clear statement that the public body proposes to ratify a prior action and information on how the public may obtain a detailed written description of the action to be ratified.

3. The public body shall make available to the public a detailed written description of the action to be ratified and all deliberations, consultations and decisions by members of the public body that preceded and related to such action. The written description shall also be included as part of the minutes of the meeting at which ratification is taken.

4. The public body shall make available to the public the notice and detailed written description required by this section at least seventy-two hours in advance of the public meeting at which the ratification is taken.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley, 790 P.2d 263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley, 790 P.2d 263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 17× “A.R.S. § 38-431.05 reads in full as follows: “§ 38-431.”
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis, 290 P.3d 1226 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “04), 18 a violation of the OML carries the following potential enforcement and penalty options: mandatory nullification of business transacted in violation of the OML (A.R.S. § 38-431.05(A)); civil penalties up to five hundred dollars (A.”
Karol v. Bd. of Educ. Trs., 593 P.2d 649 (Ariz. 1979). · cites it 4× “The teachers also cite A.R.S. § 38-431.05, renumbered, 1974 Ariz.”
McLeod v. Chilton, 643 P.2d 712 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 38-431.05. Count One also sought injunctive relief from any further attempt to terminate plaintiff pursuant to any Livestock Board resolution entered at the August 22 meeting.”
Johnson v. Tempe Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 3 Governing Bd., 20 P.3d 1148 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “¶ 17 We conclude that the Board violated the open meeting law when, in executive session, it decided to appeal the superi- or court’s judgment.”
Hokanson v. High Sch. Dist. No. Eight (8) of Pima, 589 P.2d 907 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 38-431.05 provides that all business transacted during a meeting or public proceedings held in violation of the open meeting law shall be null and void.”
Carefree Improvement Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale, 649 P.2d 985 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 38-431.05. Any person violating the open meeting law is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.”
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley, 803 P.2d 891 (Ariz. 1990). “We simply find no basis in § 38-431.05(A) for nullifying the enactment proceedings.”
Valencia v. Cota, 617 P.2d 63 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 38-431.05 provides: “All business transacted in any body during a meeting or public proceedings held in violation of the provisions of this article shall be null and void.”
Fisher v. Maricopa Cnty. Stadium Dist., 912 P.2d 1345 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “”) § 38-431.05(A) (1985). 2 . The Stadium District was established pursuant to A.”
Porta House, Inc. v. Scottsdale Auto Lease, Inc., 584 P.2d 579 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “This is particularly true in this instance in view of the mandate of A.R.S. § 38-431.05 which would render null and void the letter of May 28, 1974, to the extent that it is held out to be the official action of the board purporting to authorize DeSoto to act for it.”
Cooner v. Bd. of Educ., 663 P.2d 1002 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 38-431.05. There are criminal penalties provided for violation of the open meeting law.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-431.05(A) — 13 cases
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis, 290 P.3d 1226 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “04), 18 a violation of the OML carries the following potential enforcement and penalty options: mandatory nullification of business transacted in violation of the OML (A.R.S. § 38-431.05(A)); civil penalties up to five hundred dollars (A.”
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley, 790 P.2d 263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). “A.R.S. § 38-431.05 reads in full as follows: “§ 38-431.”
Johnson v. Tempe Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 3 Governing Bd., 20 P.3d 1148 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “¶ 17 We conclude that the Board violated the open meeting law when, in executive session, it decided to appeal the superi- or court’s judgment.”
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley, 803 P.2d 891 (Ariz. 1990). “We simply find no basis in § 38-431.05(A) for nullifying the enactment proceedings.”
Fisher v. Maricopa Cnty. Stadium Dist., 912 P.2d 1345 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “”) § 38-431.05(A) (1985). 2 . The Stadium District was established pursuant to A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-431.05(B) — 4 cases
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley, 790 P.2d 263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). “A.R.S. § 38-431.05 reads in full as follows: “§ 38-431.”
East Valley v. Mahoney (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
David Welch v. Cochise Bd. of Supervisors (Ariz. 2021).
Murdock v. Mingus Union High Sch. Dist., 276 F. App'x 681 (9th Cir. 2008).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-431.05(B)(1) — 4 cases
Desert Mountain v. Flagstaff (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
Tanque Verde Unified Sch. v. Bernini, 76 P.3d 874 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
David Welch v. Cochise Bd. of Supervisors (Ariz. 2021).
Tanque Verde Unified Sch. Dist. No. 13 of Pima Cnty. v. Tanque Verde Coalition, Inc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-431.05(B)(3) — 1 case
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley, 790 P.2d 263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). “A.R.S. § 38-431.05 reads in full as follows: “§ 38-431.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-431.05(B)(l) — 1 case
Tanque Verde Unified Sch. Dist. No. 13 v. Bernini, 76 P.3d 874 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
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.