Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 44
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-3102 (2026)

Interpretations by commission

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

In interpreting the definitions prescribed in section 44-3101 and other terms and phrases used in this chapter, the commission may refer to identical terms or phrases in the investment advisers act of 1940 and investment company act of 1940 including regulations or interpretive releases promulgated under those acts and chapter 12 of this title and any rules adopted under that chapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1975–1982 · leading case: United States (Treasury Dept., IRS) v. Globe Corp., 546 P.2d 11 (Ariz. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States (Treasury Dept., IRS) v. Globe Corp., 546 P.2d 11 (Ariz. 1976). · cites it 4× “We, however, are of the opinion that contractual landlord’s liens are not excluded from the filing requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code. The principal test as to whether a transaction falls within Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code is whether the transaction was…”
Black, Robertshaw, Frederick, Copple & Wright, P. C . v. United States, 634 P.2d 398 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 44-3102 A.2. [U.C.C. § 9-102(l)(b)] states that Article 9 applies “to any sale of accounts or chattel paper.”
Gen. Elec. Credit Corp. v. Town & Country Mobile Homes, Inc., 574 P.2d 50 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 3× “* * * ” A.R.S. § 44-3102 B, defining the scope of Article 9 relating to secured transactions, provides: “B.”
Arrow Ford, Inc. v. W. Landscape Constr. Co., 532 P.2d 553 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 44-3102 encompassing the instant situation, reads: “A.”
Todsen v. Runge, 318 N.W.2d 88 (Neb. 1982). “§9-102 (A.R.S. § 44-3102). Excluded are security interests that arise by statute or common law and not by the consent of the parties.”
Energy Control Servs., Inc. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 658 P.2d 820 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “It is sufficient to observe that the statutes do not pertain to the same policies or purposes *23 and that the Uniform Commercial Code definition of “consumer goods” is not necessarily conclusive in arriving at a definition of the same term contained in the Employment Security…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-3102(B): 1 case
United States (Treasury Dept., IRS) v. Globe Corp., 546 P.2d 11 (Ariz. 1976). “We, however, are of the opinion that contractual landlord’s liens are not excluded from the filing requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code. The principal test as to whether a transaction falls within Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code is whether the transaction was…”
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.