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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-759 (2026)

Late retirement; definition

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

A. A member who is eligible for normal retirement benefits on the member's normal retirement date may elect to defer receiving retirement benefits.

B. Notwithstanding this section, payment of a member's deferred benefits shall not commence later than the member's required beginning date.

C. For the purposes of this section, "required beginning date" has the same meaning prescribed in section 38-775.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1956–2014 · leading case: Pendergast v. Arizona State Ret. Sys., 323 P.3d 1186 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pendergast v. Arizona State Ret. Sys., 323 P.3d 1186 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “§ 38-758 (early retirement); A.R.S. § 38-759 (late retirement); A.R.S.”
Mann v. Cnty. of Maricopa, 456 P.2d 931 (Ariz. 1969). · cites it 2× “” The applications were made pursuant to A.R.S. 38-759, subsec. I, which provides as follows: “ * * * Any other employee, except an employee of a political subdivision whose compensation is provided wholly or in part from state funds who is declared by law after July 3, 1955 to…”
Lewis v. Tucson Sch. Dist. No. 1, 531 P.2d 199 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 4× “The major premise upon which appellant’s constitutional claim is predicated is the fact that A.R.S. § 38-759 prescribes age seventy as the mandatory retirement age for public officers and employees 1 and that employees under the control of the Board of Regents may continue…”
Finch v. State Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 295 P.2d 846 (Ariz. 1956). · cites it 2× “The correct determination depends upon the construction to be given to Section 12-844(e) of the Retirement Act [A.R.S. § 38-759, subd. F], as well as the amendment of Section 70-108(d), A.”
Williams v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1, 760 P.2d 1081 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “At the time of Williams’ inquiry, the policy that pertained to retirement was Board Policy 4080, which upon legal review had been found not to be in compliance with the requirements of the Arizona retirement statutes, A.R.S. §§ 38-759 and 759.01. Revisions to Board Policy 4080…”
French v. Babb, 419 P.2d 97 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966). · cites it 3× “*197 The payment of this annuity is governed hy A.R.S. 38-759 as amended. It is apparent under the statute that after having elected to retire and to take a life annuity that a member in the retirement system has no right freely to withdraw the funds in his retirement account.”
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.