Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1123 (2026)

Accrual of right to compensation and damages; limitation

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

A. For the purpose of assessing compensation and damages, the right to compensation and damages shall be deemed to accrue at the date of the summons, and its actual value at that date shall be the measure of compensation and damages.

B. If there is an order for immediate possession before the final judgment, the compensation and damages awarded shall draw interest from the date the order is entered by the court. If the defendant is allowed to withdraw money deposited by the plaintiff pursuant to section 12-1116, subsection M, the defendant is entitled to interest on the money that the defendant is allowed to withdraw from the date the order for immediate possession is signed by the court until the date of the withdrawal.

C. No improvements placed upon the property subsequent to the date of service of the summons shall be included in the assessment of compensation or damages.

D. If an order is made letting plaintiff into possession before the recording of the final order of condemnation, the plaintiff shall record the order in the office of the county recorder of the county or counties in which the property is located and on the recording so much of the defendant's property as is affected by the order shall immediately be granted tax exempt status for future tax rolls and any unpaid property taxes that have been levied, including penalties and interest, on the property shall be paid to the county treasurer in the county in which the property is located pursuant to section 12-1116.

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1959–2026 · leading case: Calmat of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. Miller, 859 P.2d 1323 (Ariz. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Calmat of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. Miller, 859 P.2d 1323 (Ariz. 1993). · cites it 15× “The trial court ruled *192 that § 12-1123, a general condemnation statute, presumptively applied to inverse condemnation actions and set the valuation date as of June 25, 1987, the summons’ date in the inverse condemnation action.”
City of Scottsdale v. CGP-Aberdeen, L.L.C., 177 P.3d 1198 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 14× “In accordance with A.R.S. § 12-1123(A), Scottsdale paid CGP four million dollars, its estimate of the property’s value as of the date of the summons and complaint, to obtain immediate possession of the property.”
Salt River Proj. Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Miller Park, L.L.C., 164 P.3d 667 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 10× “It argues that by enacting the statute, and another statute, A.R.S. § 12-1123(B)(Supp.2006), which allows prejudgment interest when there is an order of immediate possession, the legislature intended costs and prejudgment interest to be governed exclusively by these statutes.”
Calmat of Arizona v. STATE EX REL., MILLER, 836 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 14× “See A.R.S. § 12-1123, Historical Note. The state argues that in McDougald v.”
Flood Control Dist. of Maricopa Cty. v. Hing, 709 P.2d 1351 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “The California laws on eminent domain were revised and reorganized in 1975. The statute conditioning withdrawal of the just compensation award on waiver of all defenses except as to the amount is C.”
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Filler, 812 P.2d 620 (Ariz. 1991). · cites it 4× “2d 229, 235 (1969) (discussing § 12-1123’s requirement that property be valued as of the date of summons).”
Tucson Airport Auth. v. Freilich, 665 P.2d 1002 (Ariz. 1983). · cites it 4× “In accordance with A.R.S. § 12-1123(B), the trial court therefore included interest on the entire award at the legal rate of 10%, to run from May 13,1980, the date of possession of the .”
Catalina Foothills Unified Sch. Dist. No. 16 v. La Paloma Prop. Owners Ass'n, 363 P.3d 127 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-1123(B) (2015). In A.R.S. § 44-1201 (2015), the legislature addressed interest to be paid in condemnation proceedings by several specific public entities authorized by § 12-1111 to exercise the power of eminent domain.”
Mastick v. State, 576 P.2d 1366 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 12-1123(A). The relevant inquiry here was, what was the fair market value of the subject property on June 25, 1975 and what damages, if any, were suffered by the construction of the new truck route as measured by the difference between the value of the remainder before…”
Spencer D. Stewart, Et Ux. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 714 F.2d 977 (9th Cir. 1983). “During the period in question, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 12-1123 B provided that “[i]f an order is made [in a condemnation proceeding] letting the plaintiff into possession prior to final judgment, the compensation and damages awarded shall draw legal interest from the date of the order.”
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Beardsley Indus. Prop., 839 P.2d 439 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “”) § 12-1123 specifies that “[i]f there is an order for immediate possession prior to the final judgment, the compensation and damages awarded shall draw interest from the date the order is entered by the court.”
Uvodich v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 453 P.2d 229 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 3× “Hollis, supra, recognizes that arbitrary application of A.R.S. § 12-1123, supra, is not required where application of the statute would result in unjust compensation to the property owner.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1123(A) — 13 cases
Calmat of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. Miller, 859 P.2d 1323 (Ariz. 1993). “The trial court ruled *192 that § 12-1123, a general condemnation statute, presumptively applied to inverse condemnation actions and set the valuation date as of June 25, 1987, the summons’ date in the inverse condemnation action.”
City of Scottsdale v. CGP-Aberdeen, L.L.C., 177 P.3d 1198 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “In accordance with A.R.S. § 12-1123(A), Scottsdale paid CGP four million dollars, its estimate of the property’s value as of the date of the summons and complaint, to obtain immediate possession of the property.”
Mastick v. State, 576 P.2d 1366 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). “A.R.S. § 12-1123(A). The relevant inquiry here was, what was the fair market value of the subject property on June 25, 1975 and what damages, if any, were suffered by the construction of the new truck route as measured by the difference between the value of the remainder before…”
Flood Control Dist. of Maricopa Cty. v. Hing, 709 P.2d 1351 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “The California laws on eminent domain were revised and reorganized in 1975. The statute conditioning withdrawal of the just compensation award on waiver of all defenses except as to the amount is C.”
Calmat of Arizona v. STATE EX REL., MILLER, 836 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “See A.R.S. § 12-1123, Historical Note. The state argues that in McDougald v.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1123(B) — 12 cases
Calmat of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. Miller, 859 P.2d 1323 (Ariz. 1993). “The trial court ruled *192 that § 12-1123, a general condemnation statute, presumptively applied to inverse condemnation actions and set the valuation date as of June 25, 1987, the summons’ date in the inverse condemnation action.”
Salt River Proj. Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Miller Park, L.L.C., 164 P.3d 667 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “It argues that by enacting the statute, and another statute, A.R.S. § 12-1123(B)(Supp.2006), which allows prejudgment interest when there is an order of immediate possession, the legislature intended costs and prejudgment interest to be governed exclusively by these statutes.”
City of Scottsdale v. CGP-Aberdeen, L.L.C., 177 P.3d 1198 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “In accordance with A.R.S. § 12-1123(A), Scottsdale paid CGP four million dollars, its estimate of the property’s value as of the date of the summons and complaint, to obtain immediate possession of the property.”
Tucson Airport Auth. v. Freilich, 665 P.2d 1002 (Ariz. 1983). “In accordance with A.R.S. § 12-1123(B), the trial court therefore included interest on the entire award at the legal rate of 10%, to run from May 13,1980, the date of possession of the .”
Catalina Foothills Unified Sch. Dist. No. 16 v. La Paloma Prop. Owners Ass'n, 363 P.3d 127 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “A.R.S. § 12-1123(B) (2015). In A.R.S. § 44-1201 (2015), the legislature addressed interest to be paid in condemnation proceedings by several specific public entities authorized by § 12-1111 to exercise the power of eminent domain.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1123(D) — 2 cases
City of Scottsdale v. CGP-Aberdeen, L.L.C., 177 P.3d 1198 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “In accordance with A.R.S. § 12-1123(A), Scottsdale paid CGP four million dollars, its estimate of the property’s value as of the date of the summons and complaint, to obtain immediate possession of the property.”
State Ex Rel. Mendez v. Am. SUPPORT, 100 P.3d 932 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
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.