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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-446 (2026)

Acts based on written opinions; immunity

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

Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, no public officer or employee is personally liable for acts done in his official capacity in good faith reliance on written opinions of the attorney general issued pursuant to section 41-193, written opinions of a county attorney of the county, written opinions of the city or town attorney of the city or town or written opinions of any authorized private attorney for any independent public retirement trust fund or system for which the officer or employee serves or is employed.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1966–2025 · leading case: Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, 160 P.3d 1216 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, 160 P.3d 1216 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “§ 38-446 (2006) immunizes any public employee from personal liability “for acts done in his official capacity in good faith reliance on written opinions of the attorney general” unless the opinion is withdrawn, public employees who refuse to follow the requirements of…”
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Bohannan, 421 P.2d 877 (Ariz. 1966). · cites it 3× “” A.R.S. § 38-446. The facts admitted in this Court establish that from January 1, 1961, to March 12, 1962, respondent was president and a director of the Associated Mortgage and Investment Company, an Arizona corporation, and also a member of the Arizona State Retirement Board;…”
Hetzel v. Pinal, Cnty. of (D. Ariz. 2025). · cites it 2× “]” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-446 . The undisputed admissible evidence shows that 12 Sheriff Lamb made the decision to terminate courtesy calls to SFVFD in reliance on a 13 written opinion from DCA Jim Heard stating that SFVFD did not appear to “have any 14 authority to make anybody…”
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.