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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-345 (2026)

Exemption of state, county, city, town or political subdivision of a county from court fees

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

No court costs shall be charged:

1. The state, a county, a city, a town or a political subdivision of a county.

2. A commission, board or department of the state, a county, a city, a town or a political subdivision of a county.

3. An official of the state, county, city, town or political subdivision of a county, who is a party to an action in his official capacity.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1970–2013 · leading case: New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State, 696 P.2d 185 (Ariz. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State, 696 P.2d 185 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 11× “A.R.S. § 12-345, a similar statute passed by the legislature in 1912, provides in pertinent part that: § 12-345 Exemption of state, county or political subdivisions No court costs shall be charged: 1.”
State Ex Rel. Ordway v. Buchanan, 741 P.2d 292 (Ariz. 1987). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 12-345 states that no court costs shall be charged against the State.”
City of Phoenix v. Kenly, 519 P.2d 1159 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 4× “The City objected, stating that it was not liable for Kenly’s costs because A.R.S. § 12-345' exempts the City from such costs.”
Johnston v. Univ. Hosp., 719 P.2d 308 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “Rabe does not claim the fees were not necessary or reasonable, and the trial court’s award of costs is affirmed, (emphasis in original) CAN A JUDGMENT FOR JURY FEES BE ENTERED AGAINST THE STATE AS THE LOSING PARTY IN A JURY TRIAL? Appellants assert that under A.R.S. § 12-345,…”
State v. Juengel, 489 P.2d 869 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 2× “The determination of this question depends on the interpretation of the two following statutes: “§ 12-345. Exemption of state, county or political subdivisions No court costs shall be charged: 1.”
Thiele v. City of Phoenix, 301 P.3d 206 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Although the City might be able to justify a $15,000 security, the record here does not reveal the appropriate foundation because the amount of the bond must be based on reliable information regarding the taxable costs likely to be incurred by the City.”
State v. Macias, 783 P.2d 255 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “The statute allowing officials to hold over until their successors qualify is designed to prevent vacancies in office not to allow the unqualified to qualify.”
Barry v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 542 P.2d 1138 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “§ 23-683. This section prohibits the charging of fees, such as a filing fee, by any court or officer thereof; it does not prohibit the imposition of taxable costs for authorized expenses normally allowable to a prevailing party as taxable court costs; nor does it prohibit the…”
State ex rel. Ordway v. Buchanan, 741 P.2d 288 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 6× “*159 ANSWER FEE Finally, the state argues that under A.R.S. § 12-345 the trial court was precluded from ordering the state to pay Buchanan’s answer fee.”
Navajo Cnty. v. Four Corners Pipe Line Co., 470 P.2d 496 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “C, supra, their theory being that because the statute includes no provision either allowing or prohibiting recovery of costs by the taxpayer, yet does provide for recovery of costs by a county, the usual rule as to costs cannot be followed.”
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.