Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 41

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1030

Invalidity of rules not made according to this chapter; prohibited agency action; prohibited acts by state employees; enforcement; notice

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

A. A rule is invalid unless it is consistent with the statute, reasonably necessary to carry out the purpose of the statute and is made and approved in substantial compliance with sections 41-1021 through 41-1029 and articles 4, 4.1 and 5 of this chapter, unless otherwise provided by law.

B. An agency shall not base a licensing decision in whole or in part on a licensing requirement or condition that is not specifically authorized by statute, rule or state tribal gaming compact. A general grant of authority in statute does not constitute a basis for imposing a licensing requirement or condition unless a rule is made pursuant to that general grant of authority that specifically authorizes the requirement or condition.

C. An agency shall not base a decision regarding any filing or other matter submitted by a licensee on a requirement or condition that is not specifically authorized by a statute, rule, federal law or regulation or state tribal gaming compact. A general grant of authority in statute does not constitute a basis for imposing a requirement or condition for approval of a decision on any filing or other matter submitted by a licensee unless a rule is made pursuant to that general grant of authority that specifically authorizes the requirement or condition.

D. An agency shall not:

1. Make a rule under a specific grant of rulemaking authority that exceeds the subject matter areas listed in the specific statute authorizing the rule.

2. Make a rule under a general grant of rulemaking authority to supplement a more specific grant of rulemaking authority.

3. Make a rule that is not specifically authorized by statute.

E. This section may be enforced in a private civil action and relief may be awarded against the state. The court may award reasonable attorney fees, damages and all fees associated with the license application to a party that prevails in an action against the state for a violation of this section.

F. A state employee may not intentionally or knowingly violate this section. A violation of this section is cause for disciplinary action or dismissal pursuant to the agency's adopted personnel policy.

G. This section does not abrogate the immunity provided by section 12-820.01 or 12-820.02.

H. An agency shall prominently print the provisions of subsections B, E, F and G of this section on all license applications, except license applications processed by the corporation commission.

I. The license application may be in either print or electronic format.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Cleckner v. Adhs
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cleckner v. Adhs (2019) arizctapp · cites it 7× “Opinion of the Court asserted the revised rules narrow the midwifery scope of practice and thereby violate A.R.S. § 41-1030(C) (2018) because H.B. 2247 authorized the Department only to increase the midwifery scope of practice, not to narrow it.”
Darner Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance (1984) ariz · cites it 2× “§ 41-1030 [§ 20-287, 7 A.R.S.]; pass an examination administered by the state, I.”
Arizona State University ex rel. Arizona Board of Regents v. Arizona State Retirement System (2015) arizctapp · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 41-1030(A) (2013). ¶ 25 The System contends Carondelet does not support the proposition that rulemaking is required when the Legislature is silent on the question.”
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc. (2004) arizctapp · cites it 2× “AECC fails to consider that the Commission decisions issuing the CC & Ns were made pursuant to Rules provisions that were invalid due to lack of attorney general certification.”
General Motors Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue (1996) arizctapp · cites it 3× “See A.R.S. § 41-1030 (rule not properly adopted is invalid).”
U S West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission (1999) arizctapp · cites it 4× “If the attorney general determines that the rule does not comply with subsection B of this section, the attorney general shall endorse the attorney general’s disapproval of the rule on the rule package, state the reasons for the disapproval and within sixty days after receipt of…”
Samaritan Health System v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration (2000) arizctapp · cites it 3× “2d at 768 (dismissing futility argument on basis of insufficient evidence of actual bias); or (3) the plaintiff asserts that a rule is invalid due to an agency’s failure to comply with the applicable statutory procedures when promulgating the rule, see A.R.S. § 41-1030(A)…”
Duke Energy Arlington Valley, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue (2008) arizctapp · cites it 2× “Specifically, Taxpayers contend that the Department did not comply with A.R.S. § 41-1030, which provides that "A rule is invalid unless it is made and approved in substantial compliance with sections 41-1021 through 41-1029 and articles 4, 4.”
Carondelet Health Services, Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration (1994) arizctapp · cites it 2× “We therefore agree with the hospitals that, although the session law focuses on a hospital’s “volume,” it does not set forth the calculations to be made and leaves much to AHCCCS’ discretion, such as when its changes will go into effect and how the amount of reimbursement will…”
Phoenix Children's Hospital v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration (1999) arizctapp · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 41-1030 (Supp.1996) (amended 1998).”
Arizona Department of Water Resources v. McClennen (2015) ariz “Section 41-1030(B) prohibits ADWR from basing a licensing decision “in whole or in part on a licensing requirement or condition that is not specifically authorized by statute.”
US West Communications v. Arizona Corp. Com'n (1999) arizctapp · cites it 4× “If the attorney general determines that the rule does not comply with subsection B of this section, the attorney general shall endorse the attorney general's disapproval of the rule on the rule package, state the reasons for the disapproval and within sixty days after receipt of…”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1030(A) — 5 cases
Arizona State University ex rel. Arizona Board of Regents v. Arizona State Retirement System (2015) arizctapp “See A.R.S. § 41-1030(A) (2013). ¶ 25 The System contends Carondelet does not support the proposition that rulemaking is required when the Legislature is silent on the question.”
U S West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission (1999) arizctapp “If the attorney general determines that the rule does not comply with subsection B of this section, the attorney general shall endorse the attorney general’s disapproval of the rule on the rule package, state the reasons for the disapproval and within sixty days after receipt of…”
Samaritan Health System v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration (2000) arizctapp “2d at 768 (dismissing futility argument on basis of insufficient evidence of actual bias); or (3) the plaintiff asserts that a rule is invalid due to an agency’s failure to comply with the applicable statutory procedures when promulgating the rule, see A.R.S. § 41-1030(A)…”
US West Communications v. Arizona Corp. Com'n (1999) arizctapp “If the attorney general determines that the rule does not comply with subsection B of this section, the attorney general shall endorse the attorney general's disapproval of the rule on the rule package, state the reasons for the disapproval and within sixty days after receipt of…”
Republican National Committee; Republican Party of Arizona v. Adrian Fontes; Voto Latino (2025) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1030(A)(1999) — 1 case
Samaritan Health System v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration (2000) arizctapp “2d at 768 (dismissing futility argument on basis of insufficient evidence of actual bias); or (3) the plaintiff asserts that a rule is invalid due to an agency’s failure to comply with the applicable statutory procedures when promulgating the rule, see A.R.S. § 41-1030(A)…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1030(B) — 5 cases
Arizona Department of Water Resources v. McClennen (2015) ariz “Section 41-1030(B) prohibits ADWR from basing a licensing decision “in whole or in part on a licensing requirement or condition that is not specifically authorized by statute.”
Hv Canal v. Adot (2024) arizctapp
Sssr v. Cabrera (2016) arizctapp
adwr/freeport v. Hon. mcclennen/mohave County (2015) ariz
adwr/freeport v. Hon. mcclennen/mohave County (2015) ariz
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1030(C) — 1 case
Cleckner v. Adhs (2019) arizctapp “Opinion of the Court asserted the revised rules narrow the midwifery scope of practice and thereby violate A.R.S. § 41-1030(C) (2018) because H.B. 2247 authorized the Department only to increase the midwifery scope of practice, not to narrow it.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1030(C)(1) — 1 case
Cleckner v. Adhs (2019) arizctapp “Opinion of the Court asserted the revised rules narrow the midwifery scope of practice and thereby violate A.R.S. § 41-1030(C) (2018) because H.B. 2247 authorized the Department only to increase the midwifery scope of practice, not to narrow it.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1030(C)(2) — 1 case
Cleckner v. Adhs (2019) arizctapp “Opinion of the Court asserted the revised rules narrow the midwifery scope of practice and thereby violate A.R.S. § 41-1030(C) (2018) because H.B. 2247 authorized the Department only to increase the midwifery scope of practice, not to narrow it.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1030(E) — 1 case
Tp Racing v. Adog (2022) arizctapp
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.