A. If a licensee makes timely and sufficient application for the renewal of a license or a new license with reference to any activity of a continuing nature, the existing license does not expire until the application has been finally determined by the agency, and, in case the application is denied or the terms of the new license limited, until the last day for seeking review of the agency order or a later date fixed by order of the reviewing court.
B. Revocation, suspension, annulment or withdrawal of any license is not lawful unless, before the action, the agency provides the licensee with notice and an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with this article. If the agency finds that the public health, safety or welfare imperatively requires emergency action, and incorporates a finding to that effect in its order, the agency may order summary suspension of a license pending proceedings for revocation or other action. These proceedings shall be promptly instituted and determined.
Notes of Decisions
Dahnad v. Buttrick, 36 P.3d 742 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 10× “02(C), which provides in pertinent part: If the circumstances warrant an emergency suspension pursuant to § 41-1092.11, the board may dispense with the procedures required by this section____[I]f the license has been summarily suspended pursuant to § 41-1092.”
Wassef v. Arizona State Bd. of Dental Examiners ex rel. Hugunin, 393 P.3d 151 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “1994); see also AR.S. § 41-1092.11(B). Due process is not a static concept, and may vary with the setting, but generally requires “notice and an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner and at a meaningful time.”
Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Brnovich, 172 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (D. Ariz. 2016).
“is a party or has an interest”); § 41-192(D) (“no state agency other than the attorney general shall employ legal counsel or make an expenditure or incur an indebtedness for legal services”).”
In Re Miller, 2009 VT 112 (Vt. 2009).
“, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 41-1092.11 (B); Conn.”
Gonzales v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 9× “A.R.S. § 41-1092.11(B). ¶14 Earlier in the same article, the Administrative Hearing Procedures Act elaborates on this requirement: The agency shall prepare and serve a notice of hearing on all parties to the appeal or contested case at least thirty days before the hearing.”
Tp Racing v. Simms (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “”); A.R.S. § 41-1092.11(A) (providing that when license-renewal application is denied, existing license continues until denial becomes final after review or expiration of time for seeking review).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.11(A) — 1 case
Tp Racing v. Simms (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“”); A.R.S. § 41-1092.11(A) (providing that when license-renewal application is denied, existing license continues until denial becomes final after review or expiration of time for seeking review).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.11(B) — 4 cases
Wassef v. Arizona State Bd. of Dental Examiners ex rel. Hugunin, 393 P.3d 151 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“1994); see also AR.S. § 41-1092.11(B). Due process is not a static concept, and may vary with the setting, but generally requires “notice and an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner and at a meaningful time.”
Dahnad v. Buttrick, 36 P.3d 742 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“02(C), which provides in pertinent part: If the circumstances warrant an emergency suspension pursuant to § 41-1092.11, the board may dispense with the procedures required by this section____[I]f the license has been summarily suspended pursuant to § 41-1092.”
Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Brnovich, 172 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (D. Ariz. 2016).
“is a party or has an interest”); § 41-192(D) (“no state agency other than the attorney general shall employ legal counsel or make an expenditure or incur an indebtedness for legal services”).”
Gonzales v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“A.R.S. § 41-1092.11(B). ¶14 Earlier in the same article, the Administrative Hearing Procedures Act elaborates on this requirement: The agency shall prepare and serve a notice of hearing on all parties to the appeal or contested case at least thirty days before the hearing.”
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.