A. The attorney general shall review rules that are exempt pursuant to section 41-1057.
B. Rules that are exempt pursuant to section 41-1057 shall not be filed with the secretary of state unless the attorney general approves the rule as:
1. To form.
2. Clear, concise and understandable.
3. Within the power of the agency to make and within the enacted legislative standards.
4. Made in compliance with the appropriate procedures.
C. The attorney general shall not approve a rule with an immediate effective date unless the attorney general determines that the rule complies with section 41-1032.
D. Within sixty days of receipt of the rule the attorney general shall endorse the attorney general's approval on the rule package. After approval, the attorney general shall file the rule package with the secretary of state.
E. 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 the rule return the rule package to the agency that made the rule.
Notes of Decisions
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc., 83 P.3d 573 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 12× “The court also found that some of the Rules were invalid because the Commission had not submitted them to the attorney general for certification pursuant to the APA, A.R.S. § 41-1044. Because the Commission issued the disputed CC & Ns pursuant to the Rules, the court vacated the…”
Phoenix Child.'s Hosp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Sys. Admin., 987 P.2d 763 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“That definition is as follows: [A]ny rule filed with the secretary of state and adopted pursuant to an exemption from this chapter in section 41-1005, adopted pursuant to § 41-1026, approved by the council pursuant to § 41-1052 or 41-1053 or approved by the attorney general…”
ruco/thaler v. Acc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “1999) (“Rules are invalid if not adopted and approved in accordance with the procedure outlined by [§ 41-1044].”). That section is itself part of the APA, so US West supports RUCO’s argument that the Commission is subject to the APA.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1044(A) — 3 cases
ruco/thaler v. Acc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“1999) (“Rules are invalid if not adopted and approved in accordance with the procedure outlined by [§ 41-1044].”). That section is itself part of the APA, so US West supports RUCO’s argument that the Commission is subject to the APA.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1044(B) — 1 case
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc., 83 P.3d 573 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“The court also found that some of the Rules were invalid because the Commission had not submitted them to the attorney general for certification pursuant to the APA, A.R.S. § 41-1044. Because the Commission issued the disputed CC & Ns pursuant to the Rules, the court vacated the…”
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.