Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 11
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-601 (2026)

County charges

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

County charges are:

1. Charges against the county incurred by virtue of any provision of this title.

2. Salaries of county and precinct officers, deputies and employees and necessary expenses incurred in the conduct of their offices.

3. Expenses necessarily incurred in the support of persons charged with or convicted of crime and committed therefor to the county jail.

4. Sums required by law to be paid to grand and trial jurors and indigent witnesses in criminal actions.

5. Compensation of interpreters in the prosecution or defense of criminal actions who have been appointed by the presiding judge of the superior court as official interpreters for justice courts and courts of record of their county. Such interpreters shall be paid such salaries as the board of supervisors may determine.

6. Necessary expenses for the support of county hospitals and indigent sick whose support is chargeable to the county.

7. Compensation of physicians for making examinations in insanity cases upon the request or order of the superior court.

8. Contingent expenses necessarily incurred for the use and benefit of the county.

9. Every other sum directed by law to be raised for a county purpose or declared to be a county charge.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1945–2025 · leading case: Hounshell v. White, 199 P.3d 636 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hounshell v. White, 199 P.3d 636 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “2120 removed “[pjremiums for official bonds required by law to be given by public officers, deputies or clerks” from the list of county charges in § 11-601. ¶ 39 In making this argument, the Board relies on the same kind of flawed analysis put forward by Hounshell in arguing…”
Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., 181 P.3d 188 (Ariz. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 11-601(d) (2004); 830 Mass.Code Regs. 62C.”
City of Phoenix v. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty., 677 P.2d 1283 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 11-601(7). And: Except as provided in § 36-183.”
Mohave Cnty. v. City of Kingman, 774 P.2d 806 (Ariz. 1989). · cites it 3× “Also, A.R.S. § 11-601(3) states that, County charges are: 3.”
State Ex Rel. Arizona High. Dep't v. Lassen, 407 P.2d 747 (Ariz. 1965). · cites it 2× “‘“This decision was predicated on an 'interpretation of section 11-601, A.C.A. 1939. This section of the code, together with the,, provisions contained in sections 11-1001, 11-1002 and 11-1003, were all enacted at the same time.”
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court, 677 P.2d 1283 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 11-601(7). And: Except as provided in § 36-183.”
State Ex Rel. Conway v. State Land Dep't, 156 P.2d 901 (Ariz. 1945). · cites it 2× “This decision was predicated on an interpretation of Section 11-601, Arizona Code Annotated 1939.”
Shepherd v. Platt, 865 P.2d 107 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “§§ 11-951 to 11-954 and include projects on the reservation.”
Lockwood v. Bd. of Supervisors of Maricopa Cnty., 297 P.2d 356 (Ariz. 1956). · cites it 2× “May we not safely assume that all expenditures (aggregating annually some twelve million dollars) made by respondent Board are proper "county charges"? Of course they are! Section 11-601, A.R.S. 1956, enumerates what are county charges.”
Maricopa Cnty. v. Biaett, 518 P.2d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 11-601(2) provides in part that necessary expenses incurred in the conduct of the office of a county official is a county charge.”
Mohave Cnty. v. City of Kingman, 761 P.2d 1076 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “Contrary to Lake Havasu City’s argument, in view of the more specific language of § 31-121(C), we do not interpret A.R.S. § 11-601(3) as making the county liable for all post-trial jail confinement, including such confinement resulting from city ordinance violations.”
Gregory v. Thompson, 768 P.2d 674 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 11-601. If the expense is more than $500 a duly presented demand must be made and allowed before payment can be made, but no such demand is necessary for amounts less than $500 nor is a demand required if all of the required documentation as prescribed in the uniform…”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-601(2) — 3 cases
Shepherd v. Platt, 865 P.2d 107 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “§§ 11-951 to 11-954 and include projects on the reservation.”
Maricopa Cnty. v. Biaett, 518 P.2d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). “A.R.S. § 11-601(2) provides in part that necessary expenses incurred in the conduct of the office of a county official is a county charge.”
Sanchez v. Maricopa Cnty. (Ariz. 2025).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-601(3) — 3 cases
Mohave Cnty. v. City of Kingman, 774 P.2d 806 (Ariz. 1989). “Also, A.R.S. § 11-601(3) states that, County charges are: 3.”
Mohave Cnty. v. City of Kingman, 761 P.2d 1076 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “Contrary to Lake Havasu City’s argument, in view of the more specific language of § 31-121(C), we do not interpret A.R.S. § 11-601(3) as making the county liable for all post-trial jail confinement, including such confinement resulting from city ordinance violations.”
Univ. Med. Ctr., Corp. v. Pima Cnty., 937 P.2d 375 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-601(7) — 2 cases
City of Phoenix v. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty., 677 P.2d 1283 (Ariz. 1984). “A.R.S. § 11-601(7). And: Except as provided in § 36-183.”
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court, 677 P.2d 1283 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). “A.R.S. § 11-601(7). And: Except as provided in § 36-183.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-601(9) — 1 case
Hounshell v. White, 199 P.3d 636 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “2120 removed “[pjremiums for official bonds required by law to be given by public officers, deputies or clerks” from the list of county charges in § 11-601. ¶ 39 In making this argument, the Board relies on the same kind of flawed analysis put forward by Hounshell in arguing…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-601(d) — 1 case
Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., 181 P.3d 188 (Ariz. 2008). “§ 11-601(d) (2004); 830 Mass.Code Regs. 62C.”
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.