Anderson v. Arizona Game & Fish Department
226 Ariz. 39
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- In September 2007, Anderson was convicted of unlawful taking out of season, and the Commission revoked his licenses and denied him the right to re-apply for additional licenses for five years.
- In November 2007, Anderson was convicted of a second game and fish offense (taking beyond bag limit).
- In July 2008, the Commission ordered that any and all licenses be revoked and that Anderson be denied the right to secure additional licenses for ten years to run consecutively after his current revocation, expiring March 7, 2013.
- Anderson challenged the decision in judicial review; the superior court affirmed and remanded for enforcement consistent with the ruling.
- The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded to the superior court to return the matter to the Commission for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to impose consecutive sanctions | Anderson: § 17-340(B)(2) authorizes consecutive sanctions. | G&F: § 17-340 does not explicitly authorize consecutive sanctions. | Statute does not authorize consecutive sanctions. |
| Jurisdiction to revoke already revoked licenses | Anderson: once licenses were revoked, further revocation was improper. | Commission may revoke or suspend licenses under § 17-340(A) notwithstanding prior revocation terms. | Commission validly revoked licenses under § 17-340(A) and could address sanctioning the applicant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mail Boxes, Etc., U.S.A. v. Indus. Comm'n, 181 Ariz. 119 (Ariz. 1995) (primary rule is to interpret statute by legislative intent and plain language)
- Harvey v. Pima County Law Enforcement Merit Sys. Council, 211 Ariz. 224 (Ariz. 2005) (agency actions reviewed de novo for statutory interpretation)
- LaWall v. Pima County Merit Sys. Comm'n, 212 Ariz. 489 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006) (deference to agency interpretations and statutory construction)
- Janson ex rel. Janson v. Christensen, 167 Ariz. 470 (Ariz. 1991) (statutory interpretation primacy of plain language)
- Evenstad v. State, 178 Ariz. 578 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993) (consider legislative history when statutory language is ambiguous)