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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1063 (2026)

Decisions and orders

✓ 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

Unless otherwise provided by law, any final decision or order adverse to a party in a contested case shall be in writing or stated in the record. Any final decision shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately stated. Findings of fact, if set forth in statutory language, shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings. Unless otherwise provided by law, parties shall be notified either personally or by mail to their last known address of any decision or order. Upon request a copy of the decision or order shall be delivered or mailed forthwith to each party and to his attorney of record.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2023 · leading case: Aguirre v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz., 445 P.3d 1040 (Ariz. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Aguirre v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz., 445 P.3d 1040 (Ariz. 2019). · cites it 3× “4 ; see A.R.S. § 41-1063 (stating that final decisions in administrative cases must "include findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately stated," and that each finding of fact must contain an "explicit statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings").”
Post v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 770 P.2d 308 (Ariz. 1989). “§ 41-1063. See also the general definitional statute, A.”
City of Phoenix v. 3613 LTD., 952 P.2d 296 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “This section provides in pertinent part: Any final decision shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately stat *61 ed. Findings of fact, if set forth in statutory language, shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts…”
Francine C. v. Dcs, 249 Ariz. 289 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 4, 7 (1989). The court explicitly rejected the argument that the appellant had waived the issue by not raising it in a post-ruling motion.”
State v. Perez-Gutierrez, 530 P.3d 395 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “__, 2023 WL 2621280 , *4 ¶ 18 (March 24, 2023) (disavowing a prior decision from this Court requiring superior courts to make a factual finding during sentencing because “[t]his interpretation of § 13-4033(C) requires more from trial courts than is statutorily required”).”
Woodward v. Acc, No. 1 CA-CC 17-0003 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2018). · cites it 4× “¶23 Woodward also argues the findings of fact violate A.R.S. § 41-1063 because each finding of fact does not analyze the evidence or state why the ALJ found it more persuasive.”
Gilbert Aguirre Jr v. ica/city of Goodyear, No. CV-19-0001-PR (Ariz. Aug. 15, 2019). · cites it 3× “However, because the ALJ did not comply with his statutory duty, any meaningful appellate review was not possible because there was no basis to examine “the factual support for, or the legal propriety of” the award.”
Sssr v. Cabrera, No. 1 CA-CV 15-0226 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 12, 2016). · cites it 2× “SSSR argues that decision is not entitled to deference because the Director did not make any findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by A.R.S. § 41-1063 (2016). But that statute does not apply to the ADEQ Director's review of an ALJ's recommended decision.”
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.