A. The attorney general in his discretion is authorized to represent a current or former officer or employee of this state against whom a civil action is brought in his individual capacity or who is subject to a civil nonparty subpoena until such time as it is established as a matter of law that the alleged activity or events which form the basis of the complaint were not performed, or not directed to be performed, within the scope or course of the officer's or employee's duty or employment.
B. An agency authorized by law to employ legal counsel may provide representation to current or former officers or employees in the circumstances prescribed in subsection A of this section.
C. The attorney general may advise and represent a fire district when the county attorney is unable to represent the district due to a conflict of interest.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2
cases, 2001–2014 · leading case:
Pettit v. Smith, 45 F. Supp. 3d 1099 (D. Ariz. 2014).
Pettit v. Smith, 45 F. Supp. 3d 1099 (D. Ariz. 2014).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 41-192.02(A). Thus, although suits directly against ADC and Arizona are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, suits brought against ADC employees have virtually the same effect—Arizona funds the defense and pays any judgment.”
Steiger v. Woods, 32 P.3d 19 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 33× “¶ 11 Upon remand, Steiger moved for summary judgment, arguing that A.R.S. § 41-192.02 does not allow state-paid legal representation for an officer or employee who is involved in a criminal proceeding.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-192.02(A) — 2 cases
Pettit v. Smith, 45 F. Supp. 3d 1099 (D. Ariz. 2014).
“See A.R.S. § 41-192.02(A). Thus, although suits directly against ADC and Arizona are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, suits brought against ADC employees have virtually the same effect—Arizona funds the defense and pays any judgment.”
Steiger v. Woods, 32 P.3d 19 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“¶ 11 Upon remand, Steiger moved for summary judgment, arguing that A.R.S. § 41-192.02 does not allow state-paid legal representation for an officer or employee who is involved in a criminal proceeding.”
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.