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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1010 (2026)

Complaints; public record

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall disclose the person's name during the course of reporting an alleged violation of law or rule. During the course of an investigation or enforcement action, the name of the complainant shall be a public record unless the affected agency determines that the release of the complainant's name may result in substantial harm to any person or to the public health or safety.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases, 1973–2020 · leading case: Sw. Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Env't Quality, 976 P.2d 872 (Ariz. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sw. Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Env't Quality, 976 P.2d 872 (Ariz. 1999). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 12-2102(A)(1994). [5] To the extent that Oliver v.”
DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Comm'n, 686 P.2d 1301 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “Similarly here, we agree with the Commission that the regulation does not purport to preclude evidence of test results from other laboratories, that such evidence is substantial evidence as required in agency hearings by A.R.S. § 41-1010, and that the Commission did not commit…”
Ernst v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 579 P.2d 1099 (Ariz. 1978). · cites it 6× “By A.R.S. § 41-1010, the contestant is entitled to be represented by counsel "in contested cases.”
United States v. Charmer Indus., Inc., 711 F.2d 1164 (2d Cir. 1983). “This was an erroneous view of the law, see Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 41-1010(A)(1) (West Supp.”
Oliver v. Arizona Dep't of Racing, 708 P.2d 764 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 41-1010 provides for the subpoena of witnesses, the submission of evidence and cross-examination.”
Coconino Cnty. v. Antco, Inc., 148 P.3d 1155 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Although the trial court’s dismissal of its complaint did not prevent Coconino County from filing further complaints with ADEQ, see A.R.S. § 41-1010 (2004), such complaints could not compel action by ADEQ and would likely have been futile in light of the results of ADEQ’s…”
Broadhead v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 725 P.2d 744 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “Broadhead argued to the trial court that refusal to swear witnesses violated his due process rights and violated A.R.S. § 41-1010(A). On appeal the thrust of his argument is that Morrissey v.”
Oliver v. State Land Dep't, 692 P.2d 305 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “§ 41-1010(B) states: Except when good cause exists otherwise, the agency shall provide an opportunity for a rehearing or review of the decision of an agency before such decision becomes final.”
Plowman v. Arizona State Liquor Bd., 732 P.2d 222 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Returning to that part of the judgment which reverses the findings on all counts because of the admission of reputation and hearsay evidence, A.R.S. § 41-1010(A), governs the conduct of administrative hearings.”
Wickman v. Arizona State Bd. of Osteopathic Examiners, 674 P.2d 891 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “As provided in A.R.S. § 41-1010(A)(3) (Supp.1982) “the [administrative] agency’s experience, technical competence and specialized knowledge may be used in the evaluation of evidence.”
Croft v. Arizona State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 755 P.2d 1191 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “1 Arizona Revised Statutes § 41-1010(A)(3) provides that “the agency’s experience, technical competence and specialized knowledge may be utilized in the evaluation of the evidence.”
Ciulla v. Miller ex rel. Arizona High. Dept., 821 P.2d 201 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “The standard for admission of evidence appears in A.R.S. § 41-1010(A)(1) (renumbered as § 41-1062(A)(1)): .”
Show all 20 citing cases →
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1010(1): 1 case
Brown v. Superior Court, 523 P.2d 799 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1010(4): 1 case
Brown v. Superior Court, 523 P.2d 799 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1010(A): 2 cases
Plowman v. Arizona State Liquor Bd., 732 P.2d 222 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “Returning to that part of the judgment which reverses the findings on all counts because of the admission of reputation and hearsay evidence, A.R.S. § 41-1010(A), governs the conduct of administrative hearings.”
Broadhead v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 725 P.2d 744 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “Broadhead argued to the trial court that refusal to swear witnesses violated his due process rights and violated A.R.S. § 41-1010(A). On appeal the thrust of his argument is that Morrissey v.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1010(A)(1): 6 cases
United States v. Charmer Indus., Inc., 711 F.2d 1164 (2d Cir. 1983). “This was an erroneous view of the law, see Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 41-1010(A)(1) (West Supp.”
Oliver v. Arizona Dep't of Racing, 708 P.2d 764 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “A.R.S. § 41-1010 provides for the subpoena of witnesses, the submission of evidence and cross-examination.”
Ciulla v. Miller ex rel. Arizona High. Dept., 821 P.2d 201 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “The standard for admission of evidence appears in A.R.S. § 41-1010(A)(1) (renumbered as § 41-1062(A)(1)): .”
Tabora v. State, 722 P.2d 989 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
Ernst v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 579 P.2d 1105 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1010(A)(3): 2 cases
Wickman v. Arizona State Bd. of Osteopathic Examiners, 674 P.2d 891 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “As provided in A.R.S. § 41-1010(A)(3) (Supp.1982) “the [administrative] agency’s experience, technical competence and specialized knowledge may be used in the evaluation of evidence.”
Croft v. Arizona State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 755 P.2d 1191 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “1 Arizona Revised Statutes § 41-1010(A)(3) provides that “the agency’s experience, technical competence and specialized knowledge may be utilized in the evaluation of the evidence.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1010(A)(4): 1 case
Broadhead v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 725 P.2d 744 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “Broadhead argued to the trial court that refusal to swear witnesses violated his due process rights and violated A.R.S. § 41-1010(A). On appeal the thrust of his argument is that Morrissey v.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1010(B): 2 cases
Oliver v. State Land Dep't, 692 P.2d 305 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). “§ 41-1010(B) states: Except when good cause exists otherwise, the agency shall provide an opportunity for a rehearing or review of the decision of an agency before such decision becomes final.”
Wilson v. Marana Unified Sch. Dist. No. 6, 735 F.2d 1178 (9th Cir. 1984).
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.