Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1002 (2026)

Applicability and relation to other law; preapplication authorization; definitions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

41-1002. Applicability and relation to other law; preapplication authorization; definitions

A. This article and articles 2 through 5 of this chapter apply to all agencies and all proceedings not expressly exempted.

B. This chapter creates only procedural rights and imposes only procedural duties. They are in addition to those created and imposed by other statutes. To the extent that any other statute would diminish a right created or duty imposed by this chapter, the other statute is superseded by this chapter, unless the other statute expressly provides otherwise.

C. An agency may grant procedural rights to persons in addition to those conferred by this chapter so long as rights conferred on other persons by any provision of law are not substantially prejudiced.

D. Unless specifically authorized by statute, an agency shall avoid duplication of other laws that do not enhance regulatory clarity and shall avoid dual permitting to the extent practicable.

E. Unless specifically authorized by statute, an agency may not require preapplication authorization or require preapplication conferences as a requirement to filing an application that is otherwise allowed by statute. If preapplication procedures are required by statute, an agency shall consider the preapplication requirements or procedures as the beginning of the licensing time frame for the purposes of article 7.1 of this chapter. An agency may offer voluntary preapplication procedures without specific statutory authority if the agency communicates to an applicant that the preapplication procedures are not mandatory. If preapplication procedures are offered by an agency, the agency shall consider the costs and delays that may be imposed on an applicant and shall seek to minimize those impacts.

F. Unless authorized by federal or state law, an agency may not take any action that materially increases the regulatory burdens on a business unless there is a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public that has not been addressed by legislation or industry regulation within the proposed regulated field.

G. Unless authorized by federal or state law, an agency may not apply a regulation to a qualified marketplace platform if the purpose of that regulation is to regulate a business that provides goods or services directly to the customer.

H. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Qualified marketplace contractor" means any person or organization, including an individual, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, sole proprietor or other entity, that enters into an agreement with a qualified marketplace platform to use the qualified marketplace platform's digital platform to provide goods or services to third-party individuals or entities seeking those services.

2. "Qualified marketplace platform" means an organization, including a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, sole proprietor or any other entity, that operates a digital platform that facilitates the provision of goods or services by qualified marketplace contractors to third-party individuals or entities seeking those goods or services.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1959–2025 · leading case: Arizona State Univ. ex rel. Arizona Bd. of Regents v. Arizona State Ret. Sys., 349 P.3d 220 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Arizona State Univ. ex rel. Arizona Bd. of Regents v. Arizona State Ret. Sys., 349 P.3d 220 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “Section 41-1002 provides that in the absence of an express exemption, agencies must comply with the APA, and we cannot ignore this unambiguous language in favor of a secondary principle of statutory interpretation.”

Arizona State Bd. of Regents Ex Rel. Arizona State Univ. v. Arizona State Pers. Bd., 985 P.2d 1032 (Ariz. 1999). · cites it 4× “, A.R.S. § 41-1002(0), § 41-1004, and § 41-1029(0).”

State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 848 P.2d 301 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “" A.R.S. § 41-1002(B). Second, all that turns on attorney general certification or refusal to certify is whether the propriety of commission action will be tested by a mandamus action brought by the commission or by other means of judicial review sought by affected public…”

Hart v. Bayless Inv. & Trading Co., 346 P.2d 1101 (Ariz. 1959). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 41-1002 (concerning hearings before rule-making administrative bodies), and Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co.”

Berndt v. Arizona Dep't of Corr., 363 P.3d 141 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “AR.S. § 41-1002(A)-(B); see also 3613 Ltd.”

Riggins v. Graham, 511 P.2d 209 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 9× “§ 41-1003 which dispensed with the requirements of A.R.S. § 41-1002 requiring at least 20 days’ notice and an opportunity for a hearing.”

Carondelet Health Servs., Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Sys. Admin., 895 P.2d 133 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 41-1002(A). Interestingly, the legislature has specifically exempted AHCCCS from the requirements of the APA in other areas.”

City of Phoenix v. 3613 LTD., 952 P.2d 296 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “The City counters that section 41-1002 of the Administrative Procedure Act was added after the Arden-M ay fair case was decided, and provides in pertinent part: B.”

Thompson v. Tucson Airport Auth., Inc., 786 P.2d 1024 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 41-1002. A.R.S. § 41-1001(1) contains this definition: “Agency” means a board, commission, department, officer or other administrative unit of this state, including the agency head and one or more members of the agency head or agency employees or other persons directly…”

Oliver v. State Land Dep't, 692 P.2d 305 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “§ 41-1001 et seq. The process employed here to “correct” the regulation is in no way consistent with the statutory requirements for amending a regulation.”

Arizona Corp. Comm'n v. Pac. Motor Trucking Co., 398 P.2d 114 (Ariz. 1964). · cites it 3× “The only hearing required for "rule-making" is a general "public" hearing pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1002 (1956) which was held in this case.”

Arizona State Bd. of Regents v. Arizona State Pers. Bd., 953 P.2d 904 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “1995); A.R.S. § 41-1002 (1992). Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the APA do not apply to the Board of Regents and the institutions under its jurisdiction.”

Show all 18 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1002(0) — 1 case

Arizona State Bd. of Regents Ex Rel. Arizona State Univ. v. Arizona State Pers. Bd., 985 P.2d 1032 (Ariz. 1999). “, A.R.S. § 41-1002(0), § 41-1004, and § 41-1029(0).”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1002(A) — 6 cases

Arizona State Univ. ex rel. Arizona Bd. of Regents v. Arizona State Ret. Sys., 349 P.3d 220 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “Section 41-1002 provides that in the absence of an express exemption, agencies must comply with the APA, and we cannot ignore this unambiguous language in favor of a secondary principle of statutory interpretation.”

Berndt v. Arizona Dep't of Corr., 363 P.3d 141 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “AR.S. § 41-1002(A)-(B); see also 3613 Ltd.”

Carondelet Health Servs., Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Sys. Admin., 895 P.2d 133 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “A.R.S. § 41-1002(A). Interestingly, the legislature has specifically exempted AHCCCS from the requirements of the APA in other areas.”

Legacy Educ. v. Asbcs (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).

Repub. Nat'l Comm.; Repub. Party of Arizona v. Adrian Fontes; Voto Latino (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1002(B) — 4 cases

State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 848 P.2d 301 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “" A.R.S. § 41-1002(B). Second, all that turns on attorney general certification or refusal to certify is whether the propriety of commission action will be tested by a mandamus action brought by the commission or by other means of judicial review sought by affected public…”

City of Phoenix v. 3613 LTD., 952 P.2d 296 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). “The City counters that section 41-1002 of the Administrative Procedure Act was added after the Arden-M ay fair case was decided, and provides in pertinent part: B.”

Repub. Nat'l Comm.; Repub. Party of Arizona v. Adrian Fontes; Voto Latino (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).

ruco/thaler v. Acc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1002(C) — 1 case

Arizona State Bd. of Regents Ex Rel. Arizona State Univ. v. Arizona State Pers. Bd., 985 P.2d 1032 (Ariz. 1999). “, A.R.S. § 41-1002(0), § 41-1004, and § 41-1029(0).”

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.