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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-630 (2026)

Action upon rejected or partially allowed demand

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

A. A claimant dissatisfied with the rejection of his demand, or with the amount allowed thereon, may sue the county therefor at any time within six months after final action of the board, but not afterward. If in the action judgment is recovered for more than the board allowed, the board shall allow and pay the judgment, together with the costs adjudged, but if no more is recovered than was originally allowed by the board, the board shall pay the claimant only such amount.

B. A claimant may accept the amount allowed and sue for the balance of his demand, and this action shall not be barred by the acceptance of the amount allowed.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1979–2004 · leading case: John C. Lincoln Hosp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 96 P.3d 530 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
John C. Lincoln Hosp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 96 P.3d 530 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Instead, the County is permitted, indeed required, to investigate a demand before allowing it.”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Health Servs. v. Cochise Cnty., 800 P.2d 578 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 8× “§ 11-622, it is not required as a "claimant" to file a suit within the 6-month statute of limitations set forth in A.R.S. § 11-630, because of the provisions of A.”
Pima Cnty. by City of Tucson v. Maya Const. Co., 761 P.2d 1055 (Ariz. 1988). · cites it 3× “A litigant could conceivably contend that submitting a claim under the claims statute constitutes a breach of the arbitration clause.”
Fleming v. Pima Cnty., 685 P.2d 1301 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 2× “This would have resulted in four or five separate lawsuits, each of which would have required litigation of precisely the same issues as were already before the superior court in the appeal from the grievance procedure. In our view such an elevation of form over substance would…”
Lewis R. Pyle Mem'l Hosp. v. Gila Cnty., 775 P.2d 1146 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 8× “Appellants contend the trial court erred because (1) the hospital failed to allege compliance with A.R.S. § 11-622 and (2) the trial court erred in not granting its motion under Rule 60(c) because the hospital failed to file its action within the six-month period required by A.”
Norcor of Am. v. S. Arizona Int'l Livestock Ass'n, 596 P.2d 377 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). “Section 11-630 allows a dissatisfied claimant to sue the county within six months after the board has acted on his claim.”
Patton v. Cnty. of Mohave, 741 P.2d 301 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “APPLICATION OF THE CLAIMS STATUTE Arizona Revised Statutes § 11-622 requires a person who has a claim against the county to present the county board of supervisors with an itemized statement setting forth the basis of each charge within six months of the date the last item of…”
Physical Therapy Assocs., Inc. v. Pinal Cnty., 743 P.2d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “§ 11-622 which mandates that: A person having a claim against a county shall, within six months after the last item of the account accrues, present to the board of supervisors of the county against which the demand is held, a written itemized claim executed by him under…”
State ex rel. Arizona Dep't of Health Servs. v. Cochise Cnty., 786 P.2d 407 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 6× “1984), it is equally clear that A.R.S. § 11-630 is a statute of repose. The county concedes that as the sovereign the state can and has excluded itself from the statutes of limitations.”
Pima Cnty. v. Maya Constr. Co., 761 P.2d 1051 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “§ 11-630. Action upon rejected or partially allowed demand A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-630(A) — 4 cases
Patton v. Cnty. of Mohave, 741 P.2d 301 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “APPLICATION OF THE CLAIMS STATUTE Arizona Revised Statutes § 11-622 requires a person who has a claim against the county to present the county board of supervisors with an itemized statement setting forth the basis of each charge within six months of the date the last item of…”
Physical Therapy Assocs., Inc. v. Pinal Cnty., 743 P.2d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “§ 11-622 which mandates that: A person having a claim against a county shall, within six months after the last item of the account accrues, present to the board of supervisors of the county against which the demand is held, a written itemized claim executed by him under…”
Lewis R. Pyle Mem'l Hosp. v. Gila Cnty., 775 P.2d 1146 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). “Appellants contend the trial court erred because (1) the hospital failed to allege compliance with A.R.S. § 11-622 and (2) the trial court erred in not granting its motion under Rule 60(c) because the hospital failed to file its action within the six-month period required by A.”
State ex rel. Arizona Dep't of Health Servs. v. Cochise Cnty., 786 P.2d 407 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). “1984), it is equally clear that A.R.S. § 11-630 is a statute of repose. The county concedes that as the sovereign the state can and has excluded itself from the statutes of limitations.”
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.