Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-823 (2026)
Judgment for plaintiff; amount; interest and costs
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
If judgment is rendered for the plaintiff, it shall be for the amount actually due from the public entity to the plaintiff, with legal interest thereon from the time the obligation accrued and with court costs.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1950–2023 · leading case: New v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 618 P.2d 238 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
New v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 618 P.2d 238 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). “Plaintiffs did not post bond but instead moved to strike the A.R.S. § 12-823 bond requirement. The superior court denied plaintiffs' motion to strike the bond requirement, granted the Board of Regents' motion to dismiss and made these findings: 1.”
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00, 18 P.3d 85 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “We note, however, that when a judgment is rendered for the plaintiff in a claim against the state or its political subdivisions, A.R.S. § 12-823 generally authorizes a plaintiff to recover interest against the state and its political subdivisions “from the time the obligation…”
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State, 696 P.2d 185 (Ariz. 1985). “§ 12-825 applies to this case, this statute has recently been repealed, renumbered as A.R.S. § 12-823, and amended to read as follows: § 12-823 Judgment for plaintiff; amount; interest and costs If judgment is rendered for the plaintiff, it shall be for the amount actually due…”
Phillips v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 601 P.2d 596 (Ariz. 1979). “The Board then moved to have the complaint dismissed because of the appellants’ failure to file a cost bond as required by A.R.S. § 12-823. The trial court granted the motion on September 9, 1975.”
Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Constr. Co., 733 P.2d 652 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “It need not equal or relate to the attorney’s fees actually paid or contracted, but such award may not exceed the amount paid or agreed to be paid.”
Flood Control Dist. v. Paloma Inv. Ltd. P'ship, 279 P.3d 1191 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “Prejudgment interest on claims against a government entity is governed by A.R.S. § 12-823 (2003) (“If judgment is rendered for the plaintiff, it shall be for the amount actually due from the public entity to the plaintiff, with legal interest thereon from the time the obligation…”
In Re $15,379 in U.S. Currency, 388 P.3d 856 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “Prejudgment Interest ¶27 Macias further argues she is entitled to an award of prejudgment interest pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-823. Rule 13(a)(7)(A), Ariz. R.”
State v. Williams, 472 P.2d 109 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). “And under A.R.S. § 12-823, in the same article, the plaintiff filing the action must file a bond.”
Albuquerque Commons P'ship v. City Council of Albuquerque, 2009 NMCA 65 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). “{54} We have also conducted a survey of the law in other states.”
Alb. Commons P'ship v. City Council, 212 P.3d 1122 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). “We, too, have researched federal law and can find no additional authority for such a proposition. {54} We have also conducted a survey of the law in other states.”
State v. Leeson, 323 P.2d 692 (Ariz. 1958). “Section 12-821 provides in substance that persons having claims on contract or for negligence against the state which have been disallowed may bring an action, and Section 12-823 provides that a plaintiff shall file a bond securing all costs incurred by the state if the…”
Phillips v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 601 P.2d 608 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). “However, they did not comply with A.R.S. § 12-823, which requires that a surety bond in the sum of five hundred dollars be filed “at the time of the filing [of] the complaint.”
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.