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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-461 (2026)

Appointment and recording of appointment

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

A. Every state officer, board or commission may appoint deputies and assistants when authorized by law, and may appoint clerks and employees for the prompt discharge of the duties of the office.

B. Deputies, assistants and subordinate officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law shall be appointed by the officer or body to whom they are subordinate.

C. The appointment of deputies and assistants by state officers, boards or commissions shall be in writing and filed in the office of the secretary of state. The appointment of deputies, assistants or clerks by county officers or boards shall, except as otherwise provided, be in writing and recorded in the office of the county recorder.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2000–2005 · leading case: Wenc v. Sierra Vista Unified Sch. Dist. No. 68, 108 P.3d 962 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wenc v. Sierra Vista Unified Sch. Dist. No. 68, 108 P.3d 962 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 14× “¶ 1 We consider only one issue in this case: Whether a school district budget override election should be set aside because it was canvassed by a county employee whose authority to do so had not been established in accordance with the technical requirements of A.R.S. § 38-461. 1…”
McDonald v. Thomas, 12 P.3d 1194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “Instead, the record appears to reflect nothing other than that the governor exercised the required judgment, but may have had another record the decision. The governor has the power to designate representatives for the efficient discharge of the duties of the office and often…”
Wenc v. Sierra Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 108 P.3d 962 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 15× “¶ 1 We consider only one issue in this case: Whether a school district budget override election should be set aside because it was canvassed by a county employee whose authority to do so had not been established in accordance with the technical requirements of A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-461(A) — 3 cases
McDonald v. Thomas, 12 P.3d 1194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “Instead, the record appears to reflect nothing other than that the governor exercised the required judgment, but may have had another record the decision. The governor has the power to designate representatives for the efficient discharge of the duties of the office and often…”
Wenc v. Sierra Vista Unified Sch. Dist. No. 68, 108 P.3d 962 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “¶ 1 We consider only one issue in this case: Whether a school district budget override election should be set aside because it was canvassed by a county employee whose authority to do so had not been established in accordance with the technical requirements of A.R.S. § 38-461. 1…”
Wenc v. Sierra Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 108 P.3d 962 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “¶ 1 We consider only one issue in this case: Whether a school district budget override election should be set aside because it was canvassed by a county employee whose authority to do so had not been established in accordance with the technical requirements of A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-461(C) — 2 cases
Wenc v. Sierra Vista Unified Sch. Dist. No. 68, 108 P.3d 962 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “¶ 1 We consider only one issue in this case: Whether a school district budget override election should be set aside because it was canvassed by a county employee whose authority to do so had not been established in accordance with the technical requirements of A.R.S. § 38-461. 1…”
Wenc v. Sierra Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 108 P.3d 962 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “¶ 1 We consider only one issue in this case: Whether a school district budget override election should be set aside because it was canvassed by a county employee whose authority to do so had not been established in accordance with the technical requirements of A.”
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.