Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 41
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1003 (2026)

Required rule making

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

Each agency shall make rules of practice setting forth the nature and requirements of all formal procedures available to the public.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1973–2010 · leading case: Canyon Ambulatory Surgery Ctr. v. SCF Arizona, 239 P.3d 733 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Canyon Ambulatory Surgery Ctr. v. SCF Arizona, 239 P.3d 733 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “In contrast, A.R.S. §§ 41-1003 (2004), -1012 (2004) of the APA provide that rules must be published.”
Hamilton v. State, 925 P.2d 731 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “section 41-1003 (1992), 5 DOR’s interpretation was void and could not be applied to A.”
Elia v. Arizona State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 812 P.2d 1039 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “for regulation of *228 its own conduct, for holding examinations and for regulating the practice of dentists____” A.R.S. § 41-1003 provides that “[e]ach agency shall adopt rules of practice setting forth the nature and requirements of all formal procedures available to the…”
St. Mary's Hosp. & Health Ctr. v. State, 721 P.2d 666 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “May 20, 1982 pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1003, valid for only ninety days (Supp.”
Riggins v. Graham, 511 P.2d 209 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 7× “The Board declared this order reducing the percentage of need to be an emergency under the provisions of A.R.S. § 41-1003 which dispensed with the requirements of A.”
Stoffel v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 784 P.2d 275 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 41-1003. The Act, however, specifically exempts any “[r]ule concerning only the internal management of an agency which does not directly and substantially affect the procedural or substantive rights or duties of any segment of the public.”
Valdez v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 577 P.2d 730 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 12× “The defendant’s finding and statement of emergency did not constitute compliance with the provisions of A.R.S. § 41-1003. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, declaring that the Benefit Policy Rules adopted under the emergency provisions 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.