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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-622 (2026)

Demand; time limit for presentation of claim

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

A. A person having a claim against a county shall present to the board of supervisors of the county against which the demand is held 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 and stating that the claim and each item of the claim is justly due.

B. Sellers of goods or services to a county may submit claims in writing or by electronic data interchange if such method is approved by the county board of supervisors. All other claims shall be submitted in writing.

C. The board of supervisors shall not pay any claim unless demand for payment is made within six months after the last item of the account accrues.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2024 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Dep't of Health Servs. v. Cochise Cnty., 800 P.2d 578 (Ariz. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Health Servs. v. Cochise Cnty., 800 P.2d 578 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 64× “S. § 12-120.24. Factual and Procedural Background The Cochise County Superior Court ordered a county prisoner committed to the Arizona State Hospital for mental treatment during 1980 and 1981, pursuant to rule 11, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
John C. Lincoln Hosp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 96 P.3d 530 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “Did the trial court err by concluding the Hospitals’ administrative claims for reimbursement sufficiently complied with the requirements of A.R.S. § 11-622 (2002)? 3. Did the trial court err by determining the Hospitals provided sufficient evidence of the patients’ eligibility…”
Fleming v. Pima Cnty., 685 P.2d 1301 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 12× “Within six months thereafter on August 26, 1980, plaintiff presented a claim by letter complying with A.R.S. § 11-622 to the Pima County Board of Supervisors.”
Pima Cnty. by City of Tucson v. Maya Const. Co., 761 P.2d 1055 (Ariz. 1988). · cites it 13× “The county sought a judicial declaration permanently enjoining the arbitration proceedings.”
Martineau v. Maricopa Cnty., 86 P.3d 912 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “Compliance Unnecessary as a Prerequisite ¶ 18 Appellants argue that neither statutory notice of claim requirement applies here in view of the nature of their action — that is, a declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate a County policy.”
Est. of braden/gabaldon v. State, 266 P.3d 349 (Ariz. 2011). · cites it 4× “” ¶11 The legislature defined “enterprise” for purposes of APSA, stating that it “means any corporation, partnership, association, labor union or other legal entity, or any group of persons associated in fact although not a legal entity, that is involved with providing care to a…”
Yollin v. City of Glendale, 191 P.3d 1040 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “stating minutely what the claim is for, specifying each item, the date and amount of each item and stating that the claim and each item of the claim is justly due” in claims against a county). The legislature has mandated that procedure for counties, but not for other government…”
Physical Therapy Assocs., Inc. v. Pinal Cnty., 743 P.2d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 10× “The county moved to dismiss PTA's action under Rule 12(b) alleging: (1) that PTA did not file its claim with the board of supervisors within six months of the alleged breach, thereby depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 11-622; and (2) that PTA…”
Gipson v. Bean, 753 P.2d 168 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 8× “In January 1986, the real parties in interest filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that petitioners had failed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 11-622, which provides: A person having a claim against a county shall, within six months after the last item of the…”
Falcon v. Maricopa Cnty., 128 P.3d 767 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 7× “¶ 10 The Blauvelt court’s identification of a county’s “chief executive officer” as its board of supervisors is further bolstered by a review of A.R.S. § 11-622 (2001), which also governs presentation of claims to counties.”
A. Miner Contracting, Inc. v. Toho-Tolani Cnty. Improvement Dist., 311 P.3d 1062 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “§ 48-924(D) and (E), we need not consider its assertion that the trial court erred by dismissing its complaint and counterclaims pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 11-622 and 12-821.01. . The District acknowledged it had no claims against Safeco for breach of contract, but added it “only to…”
Patton v. Cnty. of Mohave, 741 P.2d 301 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “We therefore affirm the trial court’s determination that Patton was not required to file a claim in accordance with A.R.S. § 11-622 as a prerequisite to bringing this action.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-622(A) — 6 cases
Martineau v. Maricopa Cnty., 86 P.3d 912 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “Compliance Unnecessary as a Prerequisite ¶ 18 Appellants argue that neither statutory notice of claim requirement applies here in view of the nature of their action — that is, a declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate a County policy.”
Yollin v. City of Glendale, 191 P.3d 1040 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “stating minutely what the claim is for, specifying each item, the date and amount of each item and stating that the claim and each item of the claim is justly due” in claims against a county). The legislature has mandated that procedure for counties, but not for other government…”
John C. Lincoln Hosp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 96 P.3d 530 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “Did the trial court err by concluding the Hospitals’ administrative claims for reimbursement sufficiently complied with the requirements of A.R.S. § 11-622 (2002)? 3. Did the trial court err by determining the Hospitals provided sufficient evidence of the patients’ eligibility…”
Pinal Cnty. v. Fuller, 429 P.3d 570 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
Donahoe v. Arpaio, 872 F. Supp. 2d 900 (D. Ariz. 2012).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-622(B) — 1 case
Donahoe v. Arpaio, 872 F. Supp. 2d 900 (D. Ariz. 2012).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-622(C) — 1 case
Kp Ventures v. Mohave (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
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.