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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1602 (2026)

State department of corrections; purpose

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. There shall be a state department of corrections.

B. The department shall have as its purpose the objective of encompassing the various institutions, facilities and programs which are now or may become a part of the correctional program of the state, and to provide the supervisory staff and administrative functions at the state level of all matters relating to the institutionalization, rehabilitation and community supervision functions of all adult offenders.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: Litchfield Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 79 v. Babbitt, 608 P.2d 792 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Litchfield Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 79 v. Babbitt, 608 P.2d 792 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “Appellees cite A.R.S. § 41-1602, which provides as follows: A.”
Dupnik v. MacDougall, 664 P.2d 189 (Ariz. 1983). · cites it 2× “The passage of the 1978 criminal code harmonized the various sections of that code with the provisions of Chapter 11 of Title 41 defining the organization and duties of the Department of Corrections. The criminal code provided that persons sentenced to imprisonment for a felony…”
Merrick v. Lewis, 952 P.2d 309 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “plaint alleged that (1) the loss of his property occurred because ADOC had “been grossly negligent with respect to storing [his] property”; (2) ADOC had denied appellant due process of law “by depriving him of property without notice or hearings”; (3) the loss included religious…”
Handrahan v. Burr (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 41-1602(A); A.R.S. § 41- 1604(A)(1), (2) (giving ADOC director sole authority to establish programs for custody and control of adult offenders committed to ADOC); Casey v.”
Torrefranca v. Shinn (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 41-1602. But even if Torrefranca had sued the proper party—the State—his claims were properly dismissed on the merits for the reasons stated above.”
Arner v. Ryan (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 41-1602. This factor weighs in favor of characterizing the assessment on prisoner spendable accounts as a fee.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1602(A) — 1 case
Handrahan v. Burr (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “See A.R.S. § 41-1602(A); A.R.S. § 41- 1604(A)(1), (2) (giving ADOC director sole authority to establish programs for custody and control of adult offenders committed to ADOC); Casey v.”
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.