A. Unless otherwise provided by law, in contested cases the following shall apply:
1. A hearing may be conducted in an informal manner and without adherence to the rules of evidence required in judicial proceedings. Neither the manner of conducting the hearing nor the failure to adhere to the rules of evidence required in judicial proceedings shall be grounds for reversing any administrative decision or order providing the evidence supporting such decision or order is substantial, reliable, and probative. Irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded. Every person who is a party to such proceedings shall have the right to be represented by counsel, to submit evidence in open hearing and shall have the right of cross-examination. Unless otherwise provided by law, hearings may be held at any place determined by the agency.
2. Copies of documentary evidence may be received in the discretion of the presiding officer. Upon request, parties shall be given an opportunity to compare the copy with the original.
3. Notice may be taken of judicially cognizable facts. In addition, notice may be taken of generally recognized technical or scientific facts within the agency's specialized knowledge. Parties shall be notified either before or during the hearing or by reference in preliminary reports or otherwise of the material noticed including any staff memoranda or data and they shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the material so noticed. The agency's experience, technical competence and specialized knowledge may be utilized in the evaluation of the evidence.
4. The officer presiding at the hearing may cause to be issued subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and for the production of books, records, documents and other evidence and shall have the power to administer oaths. Unless otherwise provided by law or agency rule, subpoenas so issued shall be served and, upon application to the court by a party or the agency, enforced in the manner provided by law for the service and enforcement of subpoenas in a civil action. On application of a party or the agency and for use as evidence, the officer presiding at the hearing may permit a deposition to be taken, in the manner and upon the terms designated by him, of a witness who cannot be subpoenaed or is unable to attend the hearing. Prehearing depositions and subpoenas for the production of documents may be ordered by the officer presiding at the hearing, provided that the party seeking such discovery demonstrates that the party has reasonable need of the deposition testimony or materials being sought. All provisions of law compelling a person under subpoena to testify are applicable. Fees for attendance as a witness shall be the same as for a witness in the superior courts of the state of Arizona, unless otherwise provided by law or agency rule. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 12-2212, no subpoenas, depositions or other discovery shall be permitted in contested cases except as provided by agency rule or this paragraph.
B. 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. Such rehearing or review shall be governed by agency rule drawn as closely as practicable from rule 59, Arizona rules of civil procedure, relating to new trial in superior court.
Notes of Decisions
Dioguardi v. Superior Court, 909 P.2d 481 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 20× “Rules relating to hearings and rehearings are governed by A.R.S. § 41-1062. Subsection 41-1062(B) provides: 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.”
Stapert v. Arizona Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 108 P.3d 956 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 6× “This rule provides that a party may file a motion for rehearing or review of the Board’s decision no later than thirty days after service of the decision except as provided in subsection G.”
Medina v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 916 P.2d 1130 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 4× “" A.R.S. § 41-1062(B) (emphasis added). The obvious reason for this is to allow the agency with the expected expertise to correct its mistakes before the judicial process is invoked.”
Gaveck v. Arizona State Bd. of Podiatry Examiners, 215 P.3d 1114 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “See also A.R.S. § 41-1062(A)(1), (3) (2004) (providing administrative decisions may be made pursuant to informal hearings without following the rules of evidence required in judicial proceedings, and “[t]he agency’s experience, technical competence and specialized knowledge may…”
Culpepper v. State, 930 P.2d 508 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 9× “§ 556 (d), the Arizona APA provision, AR.S. § 41-1062(A)(1), sets forth the scope of judicial review, not a standard of proof.”
Stoffel v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 784 P.2d 275 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 6× “Claimant also raises the issue of whether a decision based upon evidence taken at such an evidentiary hearing must be reviewed by the agency pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1062 prior to appeal to this court.”
Johns v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 817 P.2d 20 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 5× “provides in part: 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____ We find that the pretermination proceedings invoked in Johns’ case violated neither…”
Berenter v. Gallinger, 839 P.2d 1120 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 41-1062; see, e.g., Begay v. Arizona Dept.”
Shelby Sch. v. Arizona State Bd. of Educ., 962 P.2d 230 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 41-1062(A)(4). While the request was a proper one, we are unwilling to say that the Board abused its discretion in refusing to issue it.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1062(A) — 4 cases
Culpepper v. State, 930 P.2d 508 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
“§ 556 (d), the Arizona APA provision, AR.S. § 41-1062(A)(1), sets forth the scope of judicial review, not a standard of proof.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1062(A)(1) — 8 cases
Gaveck v. Arizona State Bd. of Podiatry Examiners, 215 P.3d 1114 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“See also A.R.S. § 41-1062(A)(1), (3) (2004) (providing administrative decisions may be made pursuant to informal hearings without following the rules of evidence required in judicial proceedings, and “[t]he agency’s experience, technical competence and specialized knowledge may…”
Culpepper v. State, 930 P.2d 508 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
“§ 556 (d), the Arizona APA provision, AR.S. § 41-1062(A)(1), sets forth the scope of judicial review, not a standard of proof.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1062(A)(3) — 4 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1062(A)(4) — 3 cases
Shelby Sch. v. Arizona State Bd. of Educ., 962 P.2d 230 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“A.R.S. § 41-1062(A)(4). While the request was a proper one, we are unwilling to say that the Board abused its discretion in refusing to issue it.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1062(B) — 10 cases
Dioguardi v. Superior Court, 909 P.2d 481 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
“Rules relating to hearings and rehearings are governed by A.R.S. § 41-1062. Subsection 41-1062(B) provides: 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.”
Stapert v. Arizona Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 108 P.3d 956 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“This rule provides that a party may file a motion for rehearing or review of the Board’s decision no later than thirty days after service of the decision except as provided in subsection G.”
Medina v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 916 P.2d 1130 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“" A.R.S. § 41-1062(B) (emphasis added). The obvious reason for this is to allow the agency with the expected expertise to correct its mistakes before the judicial process is invoked.”
Johns v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 817 P.2d 20 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
“provides in part: 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____ We find that the pretermination proceedings invoked in Johns’ case violated neither…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1062(B)(1992) — 1 case
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.