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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348.01 (2026)

Recovery of attorney fees; governmental entities

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

12-348.01. Recovery of attorney fees; governmental entities

Notwithstanding section 12-348, in addition to any costs that are awarded by statute, if an agency, department, board or commission of this state, a city, town or county, governmental officer acting in the officer's official capacity or an association whose membership is primarily composed of governmental entities files a lawsuit against this state, or an agency, department, board or commission of this state, a city, town or county, governmental officer acting in the officer's official capacity or an association whose membership is primarily composed of governmental entities, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees to the successful party in the action.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: City of Tempe v. State, 351 P.3d 367 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Tempe v. State, 351 P.3d 367 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 22× “Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the State and the AAG and the award of fees under A.R.S. § 12-348.01. FACTS 3 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶ 2 Tempe is a municipal corporation that, inter alia, operates Tempe Housing Services (THS), a…”
State ex rel. Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit, 399 P.3d 663 (Ariz. 2017). · cites it 4× “The State is awarded its reasonable attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-348.01, upon its compliance with ARCAP 21.”
E. Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 79 P.3d 86 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “Rather, § 41-1007 mandates an award of attorneys’ fees for administrative proceedings in certain situations to parties who otherwise would not qualify for them pursuant to § 12-348.”
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. Bd., 395 P.3d 714 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “In its complaint, the AAG requested a fee award under A.R.S. § 12-348.01. On remand, the trial court may consider the AAG’s request for fees under this statute but only for its work in the trial court.”
Mohave Cnty. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 398 P.3d 108 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 30× “The court awarded ADWR attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-348.01, “but remand[ed] the case to the superior court for a determination of the amount of the award.”
Arizona Dep't of Water Resources v. McClennen, 360 P.3d 1023 (Ariz. 2015). · cites it 2× “In the supei’ior court and before this Court, ADWR requested an award of attorney fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-348.01. Because ADWR is the successful party, we grant the request but remand the case to the superior court for a determination of the amount of the award and other…”
City of Phoenix v. Paper Distributors of Arizona, Inc., 925 P.2d 705 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-348.01 (mandatory). 7 . This is particularly true as to § 42-139.”
Horne v. Hobbs, 576 P.3d 108 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 21× “¶28 After the Superintendent filed his second amended complaint, each defendant filed a separate motion to dismiss on the court-set deadline.”
City of Apache Junction v. Doolittle, 345 P.3d 138 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-348.01 (Supp.2014), and A.R.S.”
tempe/chavez v. state/brnovich, No. 1 CA-CV 14-0282 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 4, 2015). · cites it 22× “Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the State and the AAG and the award of fees under A.R.S. § 12-348.01. FACTS3 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Tempe is a municipal corporation that, inter alia, operates Tempe Housing Services (THS), a…”
Pima v. Tucson, No. 1 CA-CV 24-0057 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2024). · cites it 8× “However, no party has challenged the provision of the Judgment ordering the City to refund the County’s overpayment, so we will not disturb that portion of the Judgment.”
State v. Az Regents, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0420 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2019). · cites it 6× “AZ REGENTS Morse, J., joined by Campbell, J., and Cruz, J.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
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.