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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-621 (2026)

Payments from treasury on demand; exception; duty of auditor general; payment of loss; alternative procedure

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

A. A payment exceeding five hundred dollars may be made from the treasury of the county upon demand duly presented and allowed, but compensation due to jurors and witnesses and official salaries shall be paid without presentation of a claim.

B. A demand is not required to authorize payment if all other required documentation as prescribed in the uniform system of bookkeeping for counties is maintained to support the payment.

C. No demand shall be necessary for the board of supervisors to draw warrants upon the county treasury in amounts not exceeding five hundred dollars for the purpose of paying for goods and services costing five hundred dollars or less. The auditor general shall prescribe the manner in which the warrants described in this subsection shall be drawn and issued.  Any loss arising out of the issuance of a warrant drawn and issued in the manner prescribed by the auditor general shall be a county charge.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1974–2012 · leading case: Patton v. Cnty. of Mohave, 741 P.2d 301 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Patton v. Cnty. of Mohave, 741 P.2d 301 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 9× “The issues on appeal are as follows: (1) whether the appellee was required to follow the county claims statutes, A.R.S. § 11-621 et seq., prior to initiating court action, and if so, whether he complied with the statutes; (2) whether the evidence supported the trial court’s…”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Health Servs. v. Cochise Cnty., 800 P.2d 578 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 8× “The state petitions for review of the court of appeals decision reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the state in its suit against Cochise County for reimbursement of hospital charges incurred by a county prisoner.”
Fleming v. Pima Cnty., 685 P.2d 1301 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 11-621 (specifically exempting claims for salaries due county officials).”
Am. Credit Bureau v. Pima Cnty., 596 P.2d 380 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 6× “” Appellants moved to vacate the judgment, contending that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because appellees had not filed a claim with the county pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 11-621 to 644 before bringing suit.”
Fleming v. Pima Cnty., 685 P.2d 1319 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “It is obvious from reading A.R.S. § 11-621 and § 11-622 that they only apply to claims for money and not to claims seeking purely equitable relief.”
State ex rel. Arizona Dep't of Health Servs. v. Cochise Cnty., 786 P.2d 407 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 22× “In this appeal we are called upon to decide if the State of Arizona (State) must comply with the requirement in A.R.S. § 11-621 et seq. to file a demand as a prerequisite to a lawsuit.”
Donahoe v. Arpaio, 872 F. Supp. 2d 900 (D. Ariz. 2012). · cites it 2× “With some exceptions, they require a demand on the Board of Supervisors and “an itemized claim executed by the person under penalties of perjury, stating minutely what the claim is for, specifying each item, the date and amount of each item of the claim.” A.R.S. § 11-622(A).”
Gipson v. Bean, 753 P.2d 168 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “You will recall that we earlier had a discussion regarding your understanding of the requirements of A.R.S. 11-621 with respect to the submission of a claim against the County.”
Yamamoto v. Santa Cruz Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 606 P.2d 28 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “On the board of supervisors’ motion for summary judgment, the trial court found that the failure of appellant to follow the procedure for filing a claim against a county required by A.R.S. § 11-621, et seq., precluded subject matter jurisdiction, citing Norcor of America v.”
Gregory v. Thompson, 768 P.2d 674 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “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 system of…”
Maricopa Cnty. v. Biaett, 518 P.2d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). “2 Appellant contends that the issue of attorneys’ fees is res judicata since it could and should have been raised in the recorder’s suit against the board of supervisors.”
Yamamoto v. Santa Cruz Cty. Bd. of Sup'rs, 606 P.2d 28 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “On the board of supervisors' motion for summary judgment, the trial court found that the failure of appellant to follow the procedure for filing a claim against a county required by A.R.S. § 11-621, et seq., precluded subject matter jurisdiction, citing Norcor of America v.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-621(A) — 2 cases
Patton v. Cnty. of Mohave, 741 P.2d 301 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “The issues on appeal are as follows: (1) whether the appellee was required to follow the county claims statutes, A.R.S. § 11-621 et seq., prior to initiating court action, and if so, whether he complied with the statutes; (2) whether the evidence supported the trial court’s…”
Fleming v. Pima Cnty., 685 P.2d 1319 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). “It is obvious from reading A.R.S. § 11-621 and § 11-622 that they only apply to claims for money and not to claims seeking purely equitable relief.”
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.