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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01 (2026)

Recovery of attorney fees

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

A. In any contested action arising out of a contract, express or implied, the court may award the successful party reasonable attorney fees.  If a written settlement offer is rejected and the judgment finally obtained is equal to or more favorable to the offeror than an offer made in writing to settle any contested action arising out of a contract, the offeror is deemed to be the successful party from the date of the offer and the court may award the successful party reasonable attorney fees. This section shall not be construed as altering, prohibiting or restricting present or future contracts or statutes that may provide for attorney fees.

B. The award of reasonable attorney fees pursuant to this section should be made to mitigate the burden of the expense of litigation to establish a just claim or a just defense. It need not equal or relate to the attorney fees actually paid or contracted, but the award may not exceed the amount paid or agreed to be paid.

C. The court and not a jury shall award reasonable attorney fees under this section.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,854 cases (398 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Am. Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., 396 P.3d 600 (Ariz. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Am. Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., 396 P.3d 600 (Ariz. 2017). · cites it 105× “” ¶9 In pertinent part, A.R.S. § 12-341.01 provides: A. In any contested action arising out of a contract, express or implied, the court may award the successful party reasonable attorney fees.”
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 710 P.2d 1025 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 50× “On the remaining issues I concur in the result.”
Chaurasia v. Gen. Motors Corp., 126 P.3d 165 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 52× “) § 12-341.01 (2004). For the following reasons, we affirm.”
Ezell v. Quon, 233 P.3d 645 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 44× “The majority denies Ezell's request for fees because he failed to cite § 12-341.01 in his answering brief or otherwise on appeal.”
Sparks v. Repub. Nat'l Life Ins., 647 P.2d 1127 (Ariz. 1982). · cites it 31× “The trial court's award of $80,000 in attorney's fees violates A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and denied defendants due process of law.”
Haldiman v. Gosnell Dev. Corp., 748 P.2d 1209 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 89× “A secondary issue is whether an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 was proper. Since this is an appeal from a summary judgment, we view the facts most favorably to the appellant.”
Mark Lighting Fixture Co. v. Gen. Elec. Supply Co., 745 P.2d 123 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 92× “§ 12-341 and attorney's fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 may be awarded to defendants-appellees where the plaintiff-appellant's action has been dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and the merits of appellant's claim may be decided in a subsequently filed…”
Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Constr. Co., 733 P.2d 652 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 34× “” The court considered it reasonable to allow Mardian to “pass through” some of the fees and costs awarded to Pioneer since Mardian had achieved “success in passing through certain of [Pioneer’s] claims to Third-Party Defendants.”
Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., 261 P.3d 784 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 22× “*12 ¶ 8 Berry filed suit for breach of contract and sought attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01. 352 answered, also sought attorneys’ fees pursuant to § 12-341.”
Tucson Estates Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines, 366 P.3d 111 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 23× “OPINION MILLER, Judge: ¶ 1 We address whether A.R.S. § 12-341.01 requires an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party if the contract that authorizes such fees mandates an award to the other party but is silent as to the prevailing party.”
Colberg v. Rellinger, 770 P.2d 346 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 76× “We conclude that Colberg's negligence claim did not arise out of contract within the meaning of A.R.S. § 12-341.01. The mere fact that the contract existed somewhere in the allegedly tortious transaction does not mean that the contract was a factor in causing the dispute.”
Hall v. Read Dev., Inc., 274 P.3d 1211 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 30× “0KA): In any contested action arising out of a contract, express or implied, the court may award the successful party reasonable attorney fees. If a written settlement offer is rejected and the judgment finally obtained is equal to or more favorable to the offeror than an offer…”
Show all 1,854 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01(0) — 39 cases
Gilbert v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 745 P.2d 617 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
Trantor v. Fredrikson, 878 P.2d 657 (Ariz. 1994).
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep't of Corr., 934 P.2d 801 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
Bldg. Innovation Indus., L.L.C. v. Onken, 473 F. Supp. 2d 978 (D. Ariz. 2007).
Matter of Levine, 847 P.2d 1093 (Ariz. 1993).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01(1992) — 1 case
Robert E. Mann Constr. Co. v. Liebert Corp., 60 P.3d 708 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01(2024) — 1 case
Talking Rock v. Inscription Canyon (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01(4) — 1 case
State v. Richey, 774 P.2d 1354 (Ariz. 1989).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01(6) — 1 case
Rouzaud v. Marek, 802 P.2d 1074 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01(A) — 776 cases
Am. Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., 396 P.3d 600 (Ariz. 2017). “” ¶9 In pertinent part, A.R.S. § 12-341.01 provides: A. In any contested action arising out of a contract, express or implied, the court may award the successful party reasonable attorney fees.”
Chaurasia v. Gen. Motors Corp., 126 P.3d 165 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “) § 12-341.01 (2004). For the following reasons, we affirm.”
Colberg v. Rellinger, 770 P.2d 346 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “We conclude that Colberg's negligence claim did not arise out of contract within the meaning of A.R.S. § 12-341.01. The mere fact that the contract existed somewhere in the allegedly tortious transaction does not mean that the contract was a factor in causing the dispute.”
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 710 P.2d 1025 (Ariz. 1985). “On the remaining issues I concur in the result.”
Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., 261 P.3d 784 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “*12 ¶ 8 Berry filed suit for breach of contract and sought attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01. 352 answered, also sought attorneys’ fees pursuant to § 12-341.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01(A)(1) — 1 case
Naumann v. Benefit Strategies (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01(A)(1992) — 2 cases
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Arrington, 963 P.2d 334 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
Samaritan Health Sys. v. Caldwell, 957 P.2d 1373 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01(A)(2003) — 2 cases
3502 Lending, LLC v. CTC Real Est. Serv., 229 P.3d 1016 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
Schoneberger v. Oelze, 96 P.3d 1078 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01(B) — 79 cases
Sparks v. Repub. Nat'l Life Ins., 647 P.2d 1127 (Ariz. 1982). “The trial court's award of $80,000 in attorney's fees violates A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and denied defendants due process of law.”
Am. Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., 396 P.3d 600 (Ariz. 2017). “” ¶9 In pertinent part, A.R.S. § 12-341.01 provides: A. In any contested action arising out of a contract, express or implied, the court may award the successful party reasonable attorney fees.”
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 710 P.2d 1025 (Ariz. 1985). “On the remaining issues I concur in the result.”
Ezell v. Quon, 233 P.3d 645 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “The majority denies Ezell's request for fees because he failed to cite § 12-341.01 in his answering brief or otherwise on appeal.”
Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal., 813 P.2d 710 (Ariz. 1991).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01(C) — 76 cases
Reid v. Reid, 213 P.3d 353 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
Bennett v. Baxter Grp., Inc., 224 P.3d 230 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
Gilbert v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 745 P.2d 617 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
Auman v. Auman, 653 P.2d 688 (Ariz. 1982).
Orfaly v. Tucson Symphony Soc'y, 99 P.3d 1030 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01(C)(1999) — 1 case
Stratton v. Weaver (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01(D) — 3 cases
Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc., 838 P.2d 1369 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
Canon Sch. Dist. No. 50 v. W.E.S. Constr. Co., 868 P.2d 1014 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
Stratton v. Weaver (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01(a) — 3 cases
BRPS LLC v. Tenney Realty Servs. LLC (D. Ariz. 2020).
arrivia Inc. v. Rowley (D. Ariz. 2024).
Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01(Á) — 1 case
Colberg v. Rellinger, 770 P.2d 346 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “We conclude that Colberg's negligence claim did not arise out of contract within the meaning of A.R.S. § 12-341.01. The mere fact that the contract existed somewhere in the allegedly tortious transaction does not mean that the contract was a factor in causing the dispute.”
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.