Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348 (2026)

Award of fees and other expenses against the state or a city, town or county; reduction or denial of award; application; basis for amount of award; source of award; definitions

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

A. In addition to any costs that are awarded as prescribed by statute, a court shall award fees and other expenses to any party other than this state or a city, town or county that prevails by an adjudication on the merits in any of the following:

1. A civil action brought by this state or a city, town or county against the party.

2. A court proceeding to review a state agency decision pursuant to chapter 7, article 6 of this title or any other statute authorizing judicial review of agency, city, town or county decisions. A licensee that prevails in an appeal of an agency's final decision following a conference pursuant to section 41-1092.08, subsection I is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred during all stages of the proceeding.

3. A proceeding pursuant to section 41-1034.

4. A special action proceeding brought by the party to challenge an action by this state or a city, town or county against the party.

5. An appeal by this state to a court of law from a decision of the personnel board under title 41, chapter 4, article 6.

6. A civil action brought by the party to challenge the seizure and sale of personal property by this state or a city, town or county.

7. A civil action brought by the party to challenge a rule, decision, guideline, enforcement policy or procedure of a state agency or commission that is statutorily exempt from the rulemaking requirements of title 41, chapter 6 on the grounds that the rule, decision, guideline, enforcement policy or procedure is not authorized by statute or violates the Constitution of the United States or this state.

B. In addition to any costs that are awarded as prescribed by statute, except as provided in subsection C of this section, a court may award fees and other expenses to any party, other than this state or a city, town or county, that prevails by an adjudication on the merits in an action brought by the party against this state or a city, town or county challenging:

1. The assessment, collection or refund of taxes or in an action brought by this state or a city, town or county against the party to enforce the assessment or collection of taxes or the denial of a refund.

2. The adequacy or regularity of notice of delinquent taxes.

3. The regularity of sales of property for delinquent taxes.

C. The court in its discretion may deny the award provided for in this section or may reduce the award if it finds that any of the following applies:

1. During the course of the proceeding the prevailing party unduly and unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the matter.

2. The reason that the party other than this state or a city, town or county has prevailed is an intervening change in the applicable law.

3. The prevailing party refused an offer of civil settlement that was at least as favorable to the party as the relief ultimately granted.

D. A party may apply pursuant to the applicable procedural rules for an award of attorney fees and other expenses authorized under this section and shall include as part of the application evidence of the party's eligibility for the award and the amount sought, including an itemized statement from the attorneys and experts stating the actual time expended in representing the party and the rate at which the fees were computed.

E. The court shall base any award of fees as provided in this section on prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of the services furnished, except that:

1. The award of attorney fees may not exceed the amount that the prevailing party has paid or agreed to pay the attorney or a maximum amount of $350 per hour.

2. An award of fees against this state or a city, town or county shall not exceed $125,000 for fees incurred at each level of judicial appeal.

3. For each calendar year beginning from and after December 31, 2015, the attorney general shall adjust the income dollar amounts for maximum awards made pursuant to subsection B of this section according to the average annual change in the metropolitan Phoenix consumer price index published by the United States bureau of labor statistics. The revised dollar amounts shall be raised to the nearest whole dollar. The income dollar amounts may not be revised below the amounts prescribed in the prior calendar year.

F. The particular state agency over which a party prevails shall pay the fees and expenses awarded as provided in this section from any monies appropriated to the agency for that purpose. If no agency is involved or if an agency fails or refuses to pay fees and other expenses within thirty days after demand by a person who has received an award pursuant to this section, and if no further review or appeals of the award are pending, the person may file a claim for the fees and other expenses with the department of administration, which shall pay the claim within thirty days, in the same manner as an uninsured property loss under title 41, chapter 3.1, article 1. If, at the time the agency failed or refused to pay the award, it had appropriated monies either designated or assignable for the purpose of paying awards, the legislature shall reduce the agency's operating appropriation for the following year by the amount of the award and shall appropriate the amount of the reduction to the department of administration as reimbursement for the loss.

G. A city, town or county shall pay fees and expenses awarded as provided in this section within thirty days after demand by a party who has received an award if no further review or appeal of the award is pending.

H. This section does not:

1. Apply to an action arising from a proceeding before this state or a city, town or county in which the role of this state or a city, town or county was to determine the eligibility or entitlement of an individual to a monetary benefit or its equivalent, to adjudicate a dispute or issue between private parties or to establish or fix a rate.

2. Apply to proceedings brought by this state pursuant to title 13 or 28.

3. Entitle a party to obtain fees and other expenses incurred in making an application for an award pursuant to this section for fees and other expenses.

4. Apply to proceedings involving eminent domain, foreclosure, collection of judgment debts or proceedings in which this state or a city, town or county is a nominal party.

5. Personally obligate any officer or employee of this state or a city, town or county for the payment of an award entered under this section.

6. Apply, except as provided in subsection A, paragraph 5 of this section, to proceedings involving the personnel board under title 41, chapter 4, article 6.

7. Apply to proceedings brought by a city, town or county pursuant to title 13 or 28.

8. Apply to proceedings brought by a city, town or county on collection of taxes or pursuant to traffic ordinances or to criminal proceedings brought by a city, town or county on ordinances that contain a criminal penalty or fine for violations of those ordinances.

I. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Fees and other expenses" means the reasonable expenses of expert witnesses, the reasonable cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test or project that the court finds to be directly related to and necessary for the presentation of the party's case and reasonable and necessary attorney fees, and in the case of an action to review an agency decision pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section, all fees and other expenses that are incurred in the proceedings in which the decision was rendered.

2. "Licensee" has the same meaning prescribed in section 41-1092.

3. "Party" means an individual, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, association or public or private organization.

4. "State" means this state and any agency, officer, department, board or commission of this state.

5. "Taxes" includes all taxes and related levies and assessments addressed in section 12-163.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 361 cases (54 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: 4501 NORTHPOINT LP v. Maricopa Cnty., 128 P.3d 215 (Ariz. 2006).
4501 NORTHPOINT LP v. Maricopa Cnty., 128 P.3d 215 (Ariz. 2006). · cites it 44× “§ 12-348, the legislature has authorized courts to award attorneys’ fees and other expenses to certain parties who prevail by an adjudication on the merits in specified proceedings against the State or a city, town, or county.”
Mission Hardwood Co. v. Registrar of Contractors, 716 P.2d 73 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 104× “[2] We are unaware of any Arizona appellate court decisions concerning whether the Registrar's role in its administrative proceedings regarding suspension or revocation of licenses is "to adjudicate a dispute .”
Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 773 P.2d 455 (Ariz. 1989). · cites it 39× “The word "state" in A.R.S. § 12-348 includes "any agency,... board or commission of this state.”
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State, 696 P.2d 185 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 40× “A review of the legislative history of A.R.S. § 12-348 shows that the award of attorney’s fees was improper.”
Bromley Grp., Ltd. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 826 P.2d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 108× “1 *534 The Department filed an objection to the award of attorney’s fees and expert witness fees and a motion for reconsideration or new trial on the applicability of A.R.S. § 12-348. The Department contended it was immune from an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to A.”
E. Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 79 P.3d 86 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 20× “In that ease, we noted that the legislature adopted a series of amendments to § 12-348 in 1990 that changed the award of fees and expenses in tax cases from mandatory to discretionary.”
City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., 32 P.3d 31 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 18× “¶ 30 The trial court did not err by determining that no reasonable finder of fact could conclude that OSI’s activities were anything other than permissible and that OSI was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We affirm the trial court’s judgment to the extent its decision…”
William Roubos v. Hon. Leslie miller/tucson, 153 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. 2007). · cites it 24× “It maintains, however, that a civil infraction proceeding is not a civil action for purposes of A.R.S. § 12-348. ¶ 7 When interpreting any statute, we look to its language as “the best and most reliable index of [the] statute’s meaning.”
Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas, 857 P.2d 1271 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 43× “Therefore, it is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-348. The Court holds that it is entitled to such fees and expenses for the entire progress of the litigation, including the enforcement of the judgment.”
Arizona Tax Rsch. Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 787 P.2d 1051 (Ariz. 1989). · cites it 28× “The Association brought a separate appeal seeking attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-348 against the Department, after the Association had successfully challenged a property tax valuation in superior court.”
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 73 P.3d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 40× “A "prevailing party" under A.R.S. § 12-348 is one who "prevails by an adjudication on the merits.”
Est. of Walton v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 794 P.2d 131 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 37× “The legislature enacted A.R.S. § 12-348 “to encourage individuals .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(1) — 1 case
Wildearth Guardians, Inc. v. Hickman, 308 P.3d 1201 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(1X1) — 1 case
SMP II Ltd. P'ship v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 935 P.2d 898 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(A) — 47 cases
League of Ariz. Cities & Towns v. Martin, 201 P.3d 517 (Ariz. 2009).
Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas, 857 P.2d 1271 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “Therefore, it is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-348. The Court holds that it is entitled to such fees and expenses for the entire progress of the litigation, including the enforcement of the judgment.”
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Dep't, 747 P.2d 1183 (Ariz. 1987).
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Dep't, 868 P.2d 335 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
Saguaro Healing LLC v. State of Arizona, 470 P.3d 636 (Ariz. 2020).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(A)(1) — 21 cases
William Roubos v. Hon. Leslie miller/tucson, 153 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. 2007). “It maintains, however, that a civil infraction proceeding is not a civil action for purposes of A.R.S. § 12-348. ¶ 7 When interpreting any statute, we look to its language as “the best and most reliable index of [the] statute’s meaning.”
Est. of Walton v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 794 P.2d 131 (Ariz. 1990). “The legislature enacted A.R.S. § 12-348 “to encourage individuals .”
Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 935 P.2d 923 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
Indus. Comm'n v. Old Repub. Ins., 219 P.3d 285 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
Prescott Newspapers, Inc. v. Yavapai Cmty. Hosp. Ass'n, 785 P.2d 1221 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(A)(2) — 75 cases
E. Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 79 P.3d 86 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “In that ease, we noted that the legislature adopted a series of amendments to § 12-348 in 1990 that changed the award of fees and expenses in tax cases from mandatory to discretionary.”
Bromley Grp., Ltd. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 826 P.2d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “1 *534 The Department filed an objection to the award of attorney’s fees and expert witness fees and a motion for reconsideration or new trial on the applicability of A.R.S. § 12-348. The Department contended it was immune from an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to A.”
Columbia Parcar Corp. v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 971 P.2d 1042 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 73 P.3d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “A "prevailing party" under A.R.S. § 12-348 is one who "prevails by an adjudication on the merits.”
Lowe v. Pima Cnty., 177 P.3d 1214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(A)(3) — 30 cases
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State, 696 P.2d 185 (Ariz. 1985). “A review of the legislative history of A.R.S. § 12-348 shows that the award of attorney’s fees was improper.”
Mission Hardwood Co. v. Registrar of Contractors, 716 P.2d 73 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “[2] We are unaware of any Arizona appellate court decisions concerning whether the Registrar's role in its administrative proceedings regarding suspension or revocation of licenses is "to adjudicate a dispute .”
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Dep't, 747 P.2d 1183 (Ariz. 1987).
White Mountain Health Ctr., Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty., 386 P.3d 416 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
Inspiration Consol. Copper Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 709 P.2d 573 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(A)(4) — 14 cases
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, 160 P.3d 1216 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
Voice of Surprise v. Skip Hall, 533 P.3d 942 (Ariz. 2023).
Primary Consultants, L.L.C. v. Maricopa Cnty. Recorder, 111 P.3d 435 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
Wallace v. Shields, 854 P.2d 1152 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
Roubos v. Miller, 138 P.3d 735 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(A)(5) — 10 cases
Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 773 P.2d 455 (Ariz. 1989). “The word "state" in A.R.S. § 12-348 includes "any agency,... board or commission of this state.”
Arnold v. Arizona Dep't of Health Servs., 775 P.2d 521 (Ariz. 1989).
Alano Club 12, Inc. v. Hibbs, 724 P.2d 47 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
Tanner Companies v. Arizona State Land Dep't, 688 P.2d 1075 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
Thompson v. Corry, 291 P.3d 358 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(A)(8) — 1 case
Cortaro Water Users' Ass'n v. Steiner, 714 P.2d 807 (Ariz. 1986).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(A)(S) — 1 case
Cortaro Water Users' Ass'n v. Steiner, 714 P.2d 807 (Ariz. 1986).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(A)(l) — 2 cases
4501 NORTHPOINT LP v. Maricopa Cnty., 128 P.3d 215 (Ariz. 2006). “§ 12-348, the legislature has authorized courts to award attorneys’ fees and other expenses to certain parties who prevail by an adjudication on the merits in specified proceedings against the State or a city, town, or county.”
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State, 696 P.2d 185 (Ariz. 1985). “A review of the legislative history of A.R.S. § 12-348 shows that the award of attorney’s fees was improper.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(B) — 70 cases
4501 NORTHPOINT LP v. Maricopa Cnty., 128 P.3d 215 (Ariz. 2006). “§ 12-348, the legislature has authorized courts to award attorneys’ fees and other expenses to certain parties who prevail by an adjudication on the merits in specified proceedings against the State or a city, town, or county.”
City of Phoenix v. Paper Distributors of Arizona, Inc., 925 P.2d 705 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
Wilderness World, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 895 P.2d 108 (Ariz. 1995).
People's Choice TV Corp. v. City of Tucson, 46 P.3d 412 (Ariz. 2002).
E. Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 79 P.3d 86 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “In that ease, we noted that the legislature adopted a series of amendments to § 12-348 in 1990 that changed the award of fees and expenses in tax cases from mandatory to discretionary.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(B)(1) — 22 cases
Nordstrom, Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty., 88 P.3d 1165 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 363 P.3d 136 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
Bonito Partners, LLC v. City of Flagstaff, 270 P.3d 902 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
South Point Energy Ctr., LLC v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 382 P.3d 1226 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
SolarCity Corp. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 396 P.3d 631 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(B)(2000) — 1 case
Krausz v. Maricopa Cnty., 28 P.3d 335 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(B)(3) — 2 cases
Nayeri v. Mohave Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
Nayeri v. Mohave Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(C) — 3 cases
Est. of Walton v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 794 P.2d 131 (Ariz. 1990). “The legislature enacted A.R.S. § 12-348 “to encourage individuals .”
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Dep't, 868 P.2d 335 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
Phillip B. v. adcs/faust (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(C)(1) — 1 case
4501 NORTHPOINT LP v. Maricopa Cnty., 128 P.3d 215 (Ariz. 2006). “§ 12-348, the legislature has authorized courts to award attorneys’ fees and other expenses to certain parties who prevail by an adjudication on the merits in specified proceedings against the State or a city, town, or county.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(D) — 11 cases
Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 773 P.2d 455 (Ariz. 1989). “The word "state" in A.R.S. § 12-348 includes "any agency,... board or commission of this state.”
Foster Ex Rel. Foster v. Weir, 129 P.3d 482 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
Stewart Title & Trust of Tucson v. Pima Cnty., 751 P.2d 552 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
City of Phoenix v. 3613 LTD., 952 P.2d 296 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
Bromley Grp., Ltd. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 826 P.2d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “1 *534 The Department filed an objection to the award of attorney’s fees and expert witness fees and a motion for reconsideration or new trial on the applicability of A.R.S. § 12-348. The Department contended it was immune from an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(D)(1) — 1 case
Inspiration Consol. Copper Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 709 P.2d 573 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(D)(2) — 11 cases
Arnold v. Arizona Dep't of Health Servs., 775 P.2d 521 (Ariz. 1989).
Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 773 P.2d 455 (Ariz. 1989). “The word "state" in A.R.S. § 12-348 includes "any agency,... board or commission of this state.”
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 73 P.3d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “A "prevailing party" under A.R.S. § 12-348 is one who "prevails by an adjudication on the merits.”
Alano Club 12, Inc. v. Hibbs, 724 P.2d 47 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(D)(3) — 5 cases
Bromley Grp., Ltd. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 826 P.2d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “1 *534 The Department filed an objection to the award of attorney’s fees and expert witness fees and a motion for reconsideration or new trial on the applicability of A.R.S. § 12-348. The Department contended it was immune from an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to A.”
Stewart Title & Trust of Tucson v. Pima Cnty., 751 P.2d 552 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
Sw. Airlines Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 4 P.3d 1018 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
Hohokam Resources v. Maricopa Cnty., 821 P.2d 257 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(E) — 13 cases
Nordstrom, Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty., 88 P.3d 1165 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 363 P.3d 136 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
Wallace v. Shields, 854 P.2d 1152 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(E)(1) — 2 cases
Nordstrom, Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty., 88 P.3d 1165 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 992 P.2d 5 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(E)(2) — 8 cases
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 73 P.3d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “A "prevailing party" under A.R.S. § 12-348 is one who "prevails by an adjudication on the merits.”
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc., 83 P.3d 573 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
Indus. Comm'n v. Old Repub. Ins., 219 P.3d 285 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
City of Tempe v. State, 351 P.3d 367 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
E. Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 79 P.3d 86 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “In that ease, we noted that the legislature adopted a series of amendments to § 12-348 in 1990 that changed the award of fees and expenses in tax cases from mandatory to discretionary.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(E)(2)(1992) — 1 case
Renalwest L.C. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 943 P.2d 769 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(E)(3) — 3 cases
Energy Squared, Inc. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 56 P.3d 686 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty., 244 P.3d 592 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
Bromley Grp., Ltd. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 826 P.2d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “1 *534 The Department filed an objection to the award of attorney’s fees and expert witness fees and a motion for reconsideration or new trial on the applicability of A.R.S. § 12-348. The Department contended it was immune from an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(E)(4) — 3 cases
Mohave Cnty. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 398 P.3d 108 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 935 P.2d 923 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(E)(5) — 13 cases
4501 NORTHPOINT LP v. Maricopa Cnty., 128 P.3d 215 (Ariz. 2006). “§ 12-348, the legislature has authorized courts to award attorneys’ fees and other expenses to certain parties who prevail by an adjudication on the merits in specified proceedings against the State or a city, town, or county.”
Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 935 P.2d 923 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
SMP II Ltd. P'ship v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 935 P.2d 898 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
Nordstrom, Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty., 88 P.3d 1165 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
AIDA RENTA TRUST v. Maricopa Cnty., 212 P.3d 941 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(F) — 2 cases
Cortaro Water Users' Ass'n v. Steiner, 714 P.2d 836 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
Cortaro Water Users'ass'n v. Steiner, 714 P.2d 836 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(F)(1) — 3 cases
Mission Hardwood Co. v. Registrar of Contractors, 716 P.2d 73 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “[2] We are unaware of any Arizona appellate court decisions concerning whether the Registrar's role in its administrative proceedings regarding suspension or revocation of licenses is "to adjudicate a dispute .”
Cortaro Water Users' Ass'n v. Steiner, 714 P.2d 836 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
Cortaro Water Users'ass'n v. Steiner, 714 P.2d 836 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(F)(4) — 3 cases
Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas, 857 P.2d 1271 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “Therefore, it is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-348. The Court holds that it is entitled to such fees and expenses for the entire progress of the litigation, including the enforcement of the judgment.”
Cortaro Water Users' Ass'n v. Steiner, 714 P.2d 836 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
Cortaro Water Users'ass'n v. Steiner, 714 P.2d 836 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(F)(6) — 1 case
Lewis v. Jamieson, 660 P.2d 1249 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(G) — 4 cases
Mields v. Villarreal, 769 P.2d 464 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
Burke v. Arizona State Ret. Sys., 732 P.2d 214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
Cortaro Water Users' Ass'n v. Steiner, 714 P.2d 807 (Ariz. 1986).
Cortaro Water Users'ass'n v. Steiner, 714 P.2d 807 (Ariz. 1986).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(G)(1) — 4 cases
Inspiration Consol. Copper Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 709 P.2d 573 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
Est. of Walton v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 794 P.2d 131 (Ariz. 1990). “The legislature enacted A.R.S. § 12-348 “to encourage individuals .”
Cortaro Water Users' Ass'n v. Steiner, 714 P.2d 836 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
Cortaro Water Users'ass'n v. Steiner, 714 P.2d 836 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(G)(2) — 3 cases
Bade v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 722 P.2d 371 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
State v. Richey, 774 P.2d 1354 (Ariz. 1989).
State v. Richey, 762 P.2d 585 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(G)(3) — 3 cases
Mission Hardwood Co. v. Registrar of Contractors, 716 P.2d 73 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “[2] We are unaware of any Arizona appellate court decisions concerning whether the Registrar's role in its administrative proceedings regarding suspension or revocation of licenses is "to adjudicate a dispute .”
Lincoln Fosseat Assocs. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 804 P.2d 765 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
Lacer v. Navajo Cnty., 687 P.2d 400 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(G)(4) — 9 cases
Bromley Grp., Ltd. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 826 P.2d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “1 *534 The Department filed an objection to the award of attorney’s fees and expert witness fees and a motion for reconsideration or new trial on the applicability of A.R.S. § 12-348. The Department contended it was immune from an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to A.”
Arizona Tax Rsch. Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 787 P.2d 1051 (Ariz. 1989). “The Association brought a separate appeal seeking attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-348 against the Department, after the Association had successfully challenged a property tax valuation in superior court.”
Est. of Walton v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 794 P.2d 131 (Ariz. 1990). “The legislature enacted A.R.S. § 12-348 “to encourage individuals .”
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Dep't, 868 P.2d 335 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(G)(7) — 1 case
Mields v. Villarreal, 769 P.2d 464 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(G)(l) — 2 cases
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State, 696 P.2d 185 (Ariz. 1985). “A review of the legislative history of A.R.S. § 12-348 shows that the award of attorney’s fees was improper.”
City of Phoenix v. Paper Distributors of Arizona, Inc., 925 P.2d 705 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(H) — 7 cases
William Roubos v. Hon. Leslie miller/tucson, 153 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. 2007). “It maintains, however, that a civil infraction proceeding is not a civil action for purposes of A.R.S. § 12-348. ¶ 7 When interpreting any statute, we look to its language as “the best and most reliable index of [the] statute’s meaning.”
Flood Control Dist. of Maricopa Cty. v. Conlin, 712 P.2d 979 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
State v. Shipman, 94 P.3d 1169 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Dep't, 868 P.2d 335 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
Roubos v. Miller, 138 P.3d 735 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(H)(1) — 15 cases
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc., 83 P.3d 573 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
Stewart Title & Trust of Tucson v. Pima Cnty., 751 P.2d 552 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
William Roubos v. Hon. Leslie miller/tucson, 153 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. 2007). “It maintains, however, that a civil infraction proceeding is not a civil action for purposes of A.R.S. § 12-348. ¶ 7 When interpreting any statute, we look to its language as “the best and most reliable index of [the] statute’s meaning.”
Gosnell Dev. Corp. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 744 P.2d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
Roubos v. Miller, 138 P.3d 735 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(H)(2) — 5 cases
State v. Shipman, 94 P.3d 1169 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. C & H Nationwide, Inc., 876 P.2d 1199 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
State of Arizona v. Shipman Sweeney (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
Cowan v. Lachner, 879 P.2d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(H)(3) — 1 case
Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 773 P.2d 455 (Ariz. 1989). “The word "state" in A.R.S. § 12-348 includes "any agency,... board or commission of this state.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(H)(4) — 6 cases
Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas, 857 P.2d 1271 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “Therefore, it is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-348. The Court holds that it is entitled to such fees and expenses for the entire progress of the litigation, including the enforcement of the judgment.”
MVC Constr., Inc. v. Treadway, 898 P.2d 993 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. AHCCCS, 803 P.2d 925 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(H)(7) — 2 cases
State v. Shipman, 94 P.3d 1169 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
State of Arizona v. Shipman Sweeney (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(H)(8) — 3 cases
William Roubos v. Hon. Leslie miller/tucson, 153 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. 2007). “It maintains, however, that a civil infraction proceeding is not a civil action for purposes of A.R.S. § 12-348. ¶ 7 When interpreting any statute, we look to its language as “the best and most reliable index of [the] statute’s meaning.”
Roubos v. Miller, 138 P.3d 735 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
Roubos v. City of Tucson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(I)(1) — 5 cases
E. Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 79 P.3d 86 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “In that ease, we noted that the legislature adopted a series of amendments to § 12-348 in 1990 that changed the award of fees and expenses in tax cases from mandatory to discretionary.”
AIDA RENTA TRUST v. Maricopa Cnty., 212 P.3d 941 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 935 P.2d 923 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Series (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(I)(3) — 5 cases
Citizens for Growth Mgmt. v. Groscost, 13 P.3d 1188 (Ariz. 2000).
Primary Consultants, L.L.C. v. Maricopa Cnty. Recorder, 111 P.3d 435 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
Roubos v. Miller, 138 P.3d 735 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
Roubos v. City of Tucson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
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.