Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-332 (2026)

Taxable costs and jury fee in superior court

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Costs in the superior court include:

1. Fees of officers and witnesses.

2. Cost of taking depositions.

3. Compensation of referees.

4. Cost of certified copies of papers or records.

5. Sums paid a surety company for executing any bond or other obligation therein, not exceeding, however, one per cent on the amount of the liability on the bond or other obligation during each year it was in force.

6. Other disbursements that are made or incurred pursuant to an order or agreement of the parties.

B. A jury fee shall also be included in the judgment and taxed as costs and shall be fixed by the court at the time the judgment is given. The jury fee shall include the cost of reimbursement for juror travel expenses. The jury fee shall be paid to the clerk of the court for transmittal to the county treasurer who shall dispose of it as other similar money is disposed of. An action to collect jury fees shall be commenced:

1. Only if the judgment fixing the jury fees is recorded in the office of the county recorder not later than thirty days after the judgment is rendered.

2. At any time after the date of the recording of the judgment fixing the jury fees and the judgment does not expire until it is paid in full.

C. The court may at any time for good cause shown relieve a person from payment of a jury fee if the court believes that such relief is proper.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 117 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1959–2026 · leading case: Reyes v. Frank's Serv. & Trucking, LLC, 334 P.3d 1264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Reyes v. Frank's Serv. & Trucking, LLC, 334 P.3d 1264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 26× “Rule 68(g) states, in relevant part: If the offeree rejects an offer and does not later obtain a more favorable judgment other than pursuant to this Rule, the offer-ee must pay, as a sanction, reasonable expert witness fees and double the taxable costs, as defined in AR.S. §…”

Newman v. Select Specialty Hosp.-Arizona, Inc., 374 P.3d 433 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 21× “The Hospital opposed many of the claimed costs on the ground that they were not “taxable costs” under A.R.S. § 12-332. Newman maintained that § 46-455(H)(4) allows the court to award not just the “taxable costs” available under § 12-332, but all reasonable costs that Newman…”

In Re Nelson, 86 P.3d 374 (Ariz. 2004). · cites it 23× “Relying on Cieminski the Commission contends that the assessment of costs in a judicial disciplinary proceeding is fundamentally different from awarding costs in a civil case. Cieminski states that because “[disciplinary proceedings are neither civil nor criminal, .”

Foster Ex Rel. Foster v. Weir, 129 P.3d 482 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 16× “” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(f)(2). ¶ 5 The parties disagree on the intended scope of that provision.”

Hunt Inv. Co. v. Eliot, 742 P.2d 858 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 14× “The Eliots opposed the amount of costs claimed by Hunt because not all of them were taxable costs provided by A.R.S. §§ 12-332 and -333. Hunt had sought reimbursement for postage and non-certified copying charges, neither of which are allowed under those sections.”

RS Indus., Inc. v. Candrian, 377 P.3d 329 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “Under AR.S. § 12-332 (2016), the prevailing party in a civil action in superior court is allowed only its taxable costs, which are defined to include: 1.”

Lohmeier v. Hammer, 148 P.3d 101 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “Peles’ expert testimony. See A.R.S. § 12-332(A)(1) (2003). V18 The Lohmeiers argue that the trial court erred in its assessment of Dr.”

Lee v. ING Inv. Mgmt., LLC, 377 P.3d 355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 12-332; In re Nelson, 207 Ariz. 318, 323, ¶ 20 , 86 P.”

Fowler v. Great Am. Ins., 602 P.2d 492 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 11× “Great American cross-appealed on the ground that the costs granted to the Fowlers contained items which are not recoverable as costs pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-332 A. THE BAD FAITH CLAIM At the close of the presentation of all the evidence, the Fowlers moved for directed verdict on…”

Levy v. Alfaro, 160 P.3d 1201 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “If the offer to allow judgment is not accepted, and the judgment finally obtained is equal to, or more favorable to the offeror than, the offer, the offeree must pay, as a sanction, those reasonable expert witness fees and double the taxable costs of the offeror, as defined in…”

Ponderosa Plaza v. Siplast, 888 P.2d 1315 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 13× “A.R.S. § 12-332, subparagraph 6, permits recovery of costs for disbursements made or incurred pursuant to a court order.”

Schritter v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 36 P.3d 739 (Ariz. 2001). · cites it 6× “2d 343, 351 (1960), we expressly held that “the word ‘cost’ has been limited in its meaning by A.R.S. § 12-332, wherein no provision was made for the allowance of expert witness fees.”

Show all 117 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-332(A) — 28 cases

Newman v. Select Specialty Hosp.-Arizona, Inc., 374 P.3d 433 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “The Hospital opposed many of the claimed costs on the ground that they were not “taxable costs” under A.R.S. § 12-332. Newman maintained that § 46-455(H)(4) allows the court to award not just the “taxable costs” available under § 12-332, but all reasonable costs that Newman…”

Bennett v. Baxter Grp., Inc., 224 P.3d 230 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).

Reyes v. Frank's Serv. & Trucking, LLC, 334 P.3d 1264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “Rule 68(g) states, in relevant part: If the offeree rejects an offer and does not later obtain a more favorable judgment other than pursuant to this Rule, the offer-ee must pay, as a sanction, reasonable expert witness fees and double the taxable costs, as defined in AR.S. §…”

RS Indus., Inc. v. Candrian, 377 P.3d 329 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “Under AR.S. § 12-332 (2016), the prevailing party in a civil action in superior court is allowed only its taxable costs, which are defined to include: 1.”

In Re Nelson, 86 P.3d 374 (Ariz. 2004). “Relying on Cieminski the Commission contends that the assessment of costs in a judicial disciplinary proceeding is fundamentally different from awarding costs in a civil case. Cieminski states that because “[disciplinary proceedings are neither civil nor criminal, .”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-332(A)(1) — 15 cases

Lohmeier v. Hammer, 148 P.3d 101 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “Peles’ expert testimony. See A.R.S. § 12-332(A)(1) (2003). V18 The Lohmeiers argue that the trial court erred in its assessment of Dr.”

Foster Ex Rel. Foster v. Weir, 129 P.3d 482 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(f)(2). ¶ 5 The parties disagree on the intended scope of that provision.”

Orosco v. Maricopa Cnty. Special Health Care Dist., 390 P.3d 375 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-332(A)(2) — 13 cases

State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 693 P.2d 362 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).

Levy v. Alfaro, 160 P.3d 1201 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “If the offer to allow judgment is not accepted, and the judgment finally obtained is equal to, or more favorable to the offeror than, the offer, the offeree must pay, as a sanction, those reasonable expert witness fees and double the taxable costs of the offeror, as defined in…”

Rabe v. Cut & Curl of Plaza 75, Inc., 715 P.2d 1240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).

Johnston v. Univ. Hosp., 719 P.2d 308 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-332(A)(3) — 2 cases

Vazirani v. Annexus (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).

Vazirani v. Annexus (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-332(A)(4) — 2 cases

Porthos v. Pulito (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).

Hasse v. Avondale (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-332(A)(6) — 14 cases

Ponderosa Plaza v. Siplast, 888 P.2d 1315 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “A.R.S. § 12-332, subparagraph 6, permits recovery of costs for disbursements made or incurred pursuant to a court order.”

Graville v. Dodge, 985 P.2d 604 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).

Gubser v. Gubser, 614 P.2d 849 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).

Kimball v. Perkins (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-332(A)(l) — 3 cases

Poulson v. OFACK, 205 P.3d 1141 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).

Heatec, Inc. v. R.W. Beckett Corp., 197 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-332(B) — 5 cases

Copper State Bank v. Saggio, 679 P.2d 84 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).

Ziemak v. Schnakenberg, 111 P.3d 1042 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).

Copper State Bank v. Saggio, 679 P.2d 84 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).

Eick v. Delta (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-332(L) — 1 case

J.A.R. v. Superior Court, 877 P.2d 1323 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).

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.