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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2030 (2026)

Mandamus action; award of fees and other expenses against the state or political subdivision; definition

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

A. A court shall award fees and other expenses to any party other than this state or any political subdivision of this state which prevails by an adjudication on the merits in a civil action brought by the party against the state, any political subdivision of this state or an intervenor to compel a state officer or any officer of any political subdivision of this state to perform an act imposed by law as a duty on the officer.

B. As used in this section, "fees and other expenses" includes the reasonable expenses of expert witnesses, the reasonable cost of any study, analysis, report, test or project found by the court to be necessary for preparation of the party's case, and reasonable and necessary attorney fees.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 78 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Jones v. Paniagua, 212 P.3d 133 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jones v. Paniagua, 212 P.3d 133 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 37× “We must also address whether the appellee is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under A.R.S. § 12-2030 (2003). We hold that a conflict exists and affirm the superior court’s order requiring Phoenix to use A.”
John C. Lincoln Hosp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 96 P.3d 530 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 9× “Did the trial court err by determining the Hospitals were not entitled to attorneys’ fees because their lawsuit was not a mandamus action pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2030 (2002)? ¶ 3 The County raises the following issues on cross-appeal: 1.”
David Stambaugh v. Mark Killian, 398 P.3d 574 (Ariz. 2017). · cites it 4× “We remand to the superior court with instructions to grant summary judgment in favor of Stambaugh.”
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson, 295 P.3d 943 (Ariz. 2013). · cites it 18× “We also hold that Stagecoach is not entitled to an award of attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-2030 because this is not a mandamus action.”
Exodyne Props., Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 798 P.2d 1382 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 22× “50, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2030, 1 the trial court awarded *376 fees of only $5,492.”
W. Sun Contractors Co. v. Superior Court, 766 P.2d 96 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 26× “Western Sun contends that this court erred in failing to award fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2030, which mandates an award of fees to a party who prevails against a political subdivision of the state in a suit to compel an officer of the political subdivision to perform an action…”
BILKE v. State, 209 P.3d 1056 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 21× “01 (2003), A.R.S. § 12-2030 (2003), and the private attorney general doctrine.”
Mcdowell Mountain Ranch Cmty. Ass'n v. Simons, 165 P.3d 667 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “1990) (explaining that although a trial court is required to award reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2030 (2003), the trial court nonetheless has discretion to determine the reasonable amount); Chase Bank of Ariz.”
S & R Props. v. Maricopa Cnty., 875 P.2d 150 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 11× “A.R.S. § 12-2030 states: A. A court shall award fees and other expenses to any party other than this state or any political subdivision thereof which prevails by an adjudication on the merits in a civil action brought by the party against the state or any political subdivision…”
Tom Mulcaire Contracting, LLC v. City of Cottonwood, 260 P.3d 1098 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 25× “2 ¶ 5 After entry of the merits judgment, Muleaire moved for an award of attorneys’ fees under AR.S. § 12-2030 as the prevailing party in an application for a writ of mandamus.”
Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas, 857 P.2d 1271 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 12× “section 12-2030 inapplicable and declined to award fees under it.”
Hess v. Purcell, 274 P.3d 520 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 23× “2 The County objected, but the trial court granted Hess a portion of the $44,198.98 requested fees and expenses because they had prevailed on “a small portion of their claim.”
Show all 78 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2030(A) — 27 cases
Ann-Eve Pedersen v. Ken Bennett, 288 P.3d 760 (Ariz. 2012).
BILKE v. State, 209 P.3d 1056 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “01 (2003), A.R.S. § 12-2030 (2003), and the private attorney general doctrine.”
John C. Lincoln Hosp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 96 P.3d 530 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “Did the trial court err by determining the Hospitals were not entitled to attorneys’ fees because their lawsuit was not a mandamus action pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2030 (2002)? ¶ 3 The County raises the following issues on cross-appeal: 1.”
Ponderosa Fire Dist. v. Coconino Cnty., 334 P.3d 1256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
Citizens for Growth Mgmt. v. Groscost, 13 P.3d 1188 (Ariz. 2000).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2030(B) — 2 cases
Hess v. Purcell, 274 P.3d 520 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “2 The County objected, but the trial court granted Hess a portion of the $44,198.98 requested fees and expenses because they had prevailed on “a small portion of their claim.”
Tom Mulcaire Contracting, LLC v. City of Cottonwood, 260 P.3d 1098 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “2 ¶ 5 After entry of the merits judgment, Muleaire moved for an award of attorneys’ fees under AR.S. § 12-2030 as the prevailing party in an application for a writ of mandamus.”
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.