A. This article shall apply to all public officers and employees of incorporated cities or towns, of political subdivisions and of the state and any of its departments, commissions, agencies, bodies or boards.
B. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, or the provisions of any charter or ordinance of any incorporated city or town to the contrary, the provisions of this article shall be exclusively applicable to all officers and employees of every incorporated city or town or political subdivision or the state and any of its departments, commissions, agencies, bodies or boards and shall supersede the provisions of any other such law, charter provision or ordinance.
C. Other prohibitions in the state statutes against any specific conflict of interests shall be in addition to this article if consistent with the intent and provisions of this article.
Notes of Decisions
Emmett McLoughlin Realty, Inc. v. Pima Cnty., 132 P.3d 290 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “¶ 25 A party challenging the presumption of a Commission member’s impartiality could demonstrate the required actual bias by showing a violation of the statutes on conflicts of interest, A.R.S. §§ 38-501 through 38-519. In particular, § 38-503(B) requires that “[a]ny public…”
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis, 290 P.3d 1226 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “] and the conflict of interest statutes [A.R.S. §§ 38-501 et seq.] cannot be applied to them, lest the courts intrude on the commissioners’ implied constitutional authority.”
Shepherd v. Platt, 865 P.2d 107 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “The record before us does not demonstrate that the Navajo supervisors receive more benefits from their decisions to authorize expenditures on the reservation than any other county resident living on the reservation.”
Croaff v. Evans, 636 P.2d 131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 38-501 et seq. In view of that sound public policy, unless required by clear and unambiguous statutory language, we should not adopt a statutory interpretation which would discourage free exercise by a public official of his obligation to disqualify himself under…”
United Farm Workers of Am., Afl-Cio v. Arizona Agric. Emp. Relations Bd., 727 F.2d 1475 (9th Cir. 1984).
“See Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 38-501 to -511. Section 503(B) provides that: Any public officer or employee who has, or whose relative has, a substantial interest in any decision of a public agency shall make known such interest in the official records of such public agency and shall…”
Emmett McLoughlin Realty, Inc. v. Pima Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “¶25 A party challenging the presumption of a Commission member’s impartiality could demonstrate the required actual bias by showing a violation of the statutes on conflicts of interest, A.R.S. §§ 38-501 through 38-519. In particular, § 38-503(B) requires that “[a]ny public…”
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.