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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-311 (2026)

Filing, appearance, judgment and decree fees

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

At the commencement of each action or proceeding, except as otherwise provided by law, the plaintiff shall pay to the clerk of the superior court a fee pursuant to section 12-284. The defendant, on his appearance, shall pay to the clerk a fee pursuant to section 12-284. Each defendant appearing by different counsel than his codefendant or codefendants, and answering separately, shall also pay a fee pursuant to section 12-284. Such fees shall include all fees to be paid, exclusive of fees for copies and for certifying.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1961–2021 · leading case: Tahtinen v. Superior Court, Pinal Cnty., 637 P.2d 723 (Ariz. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tahtinen v. Superior Court, Pinal Cnty., 637 P.2d 723 (Ariz. 1981). · cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 12-311 states, “At the commencement of each action or proceeding, except as otherwise provided by law, the plaintiff shall pay to the clerk of the superi- or court thirty dollars.”
Leflet v. Redwood Fire & Cas. Ins., 247 P.3d 180 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AWARDING ATTORNEYS FEES UNDER A.R.S. § 12-311. ¶ 24 In insurance litigation, [e]ven when the bad faith action is not groundless, the losing party faces the potential of a fee award under A.”
Sloatman v. Gibbons, 454 P.2d 574 (Ariz. 1969). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-311, as amended by Laws 1968, provides in part: “At the commencement of each action or proceeding, except as otherzvise provided by laza, the plaintiff shall pay to the clerk of the superior court twenty .”
Parker v. State Ex Rel. Church, 359 P.2d 63 (Ariz. 1961). “4, § 12-311(1), page 53. When the defendants acquired their properties there was no highway constructed adjacent thereto and no definite plans were in existence to build one.”
Gockley v. Arizona Dep't of Corr., 725 P.2d 1108 (Ariz. 1986). “2d 723 (1981) (§ 12-311 filing fees represent costs incurred by the state regardless of litigant’s financial status, are not excessive, and time for payment may be extended for a reasonable time), cert.”
Altschul v. Salt River Proj. Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 483 P.2d 47 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971). “4, § 12-311(1), page 53.” Appellants urge that the seven year lapse between purchase and taking, together with various changes in conditions, require a holding that the purchase price was not probative evidence of value.”
Shoemake v. Estancia (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “The court’s order provided, “for the reasons set forth in [EDP’s] Application for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Taxable Costs and the reply in support thereof, the Court finding there is no just reason for delay in entry of a final judgment .”
Ager v. a Better Today (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “§ 12-284; A.R.S. § 12-311; U.S. Fidelity, 65 Ariz. at 215 (noting that the clerk taxes costs).”
Sloatman v. Gibbons, 448 P.2d 124 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 2× “* * * ” (Emphasis ours) *556 The respective parties to these proceedings differ as to the meaning of the term “except as otherwise provided by law.”
Tuzon v. MacDougall, 671 P.2d 923 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “§ 13-4143 which states that “no fee or compensation of any kind shall be charged or received by any officer for duties performed or services rendered in habeas corpus proceedings.” The provision originally derives from Rev.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-311(1) — 2 cases
Parker v. State Ex Rel. Church, 359 P.2d 63 (Ariz. 1961). “4, § 12-311(1), page 53. When the defendants acquired their properties there was no highway constructed adjacent thereto and no definite plans were in existence to build one.”
Altschul v. Salt River Proj. Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 483 P.2d 47 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971). “4, § 12-311(1), page 53.” Appellants urge that the seven year lapse between purchase and taking, together with various changes in conditions, require a holding that the purchase price was not probative evidence of value.”
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.