A. Except as provided in section 32-3632 and section 42-2064, subsection F, a hearing officer or administrative law judge shall award fees and other costs to any prevailing party in a contested case or an appealable agency action brought pursuant to any state administrative hearing authority. For purposes of this subsection, a person is considered to be a prevailing party only if both:
1. The agency's position was not substantially justified.
2. The person prevails as to the most significant issue or set of issues unless the reason that the person prevailed is due to an intervening change in the law.
B. Reimbursement under this section may be denied if during the course of the proceeding the party unduly and unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the matter.
C. A party that seeks an award of fees or other costs shall apply to the hearing officer or administrative law judge, within thirty days after the final decision or order, providing:
1. Evidence of the party's eligibility for the award.
2. The amount sought.
3. An itemized statement from the attorneys and experts stating:
(a) The actual time spent representing the party.
(b) The rate at which the fees were computed.
D. The award of reasonable attorney fees pursuant to subsection A of this section need not equal or relate to the attorney fees actually paid or contracted, but an award may not exceed the amount paid or agreed to be paid.
E. A decision of a hearing officer or administrative law judge under this section is subject to judicial review. If fees and other costs were denied by the hearing officer or administrative law judge because the party was not the prevailing party but the party prevails on appeal, the court may award fees and other costs for the proceedings before the hearing officer or administrative law judge if the court finds that fees and other costs should have been awarded under subsection A of this section.
F. The department shall pay the fees and costs awarded pursuant to this section from any monies appropriated to the department and available for that purpose, or from other operating costs of the department. If the department fails or refuses to pay the award within thirty days after the demand, and if no further review or appeals of the award are pending, the person may file a claim for the award with the department of administration which shall pay the claim within thirty days in the same manner as an uninsured property loss under chapter 3.1, article 1 of this title, except that the department shall be responsible for the total amount awarded and shall pay it from operating monies. If the department had appropriated monies available for paying the award at the time it failed or refused to pay, the legislature shall reduce the department's operating appropriation for the following fiscal year by the amount of the award and appropriate that amount to the department of administration as reimbursement for the loss.
G. This section does not apply to:
1. Any grievance and appeal procedure pursuant to title 36, chapter 29.
2. Any appeal procedure pursuant to chapter 4, article 6 of this title.
3. Any administrative appeal filed by an inmate in an Arizona state prison.
H. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Department" includes a state agency, department, board or commission, and the universities.
2. "Party" includes an individual, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, association and public or private organization.
Notes of Decisions
E. Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 79 P.3d 86 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 5× “Apparently, the Commission reads A.R.S. § 41-1007 (2003), which generally mandates an award of attorneys’ fees against state agencies in administrative proceedings in which the agency’s position was not “substantially justified,” § 41-1007(A)(1), as superseding the above-quoted…”
Coplan v. Arizona State Bd. of Appraisal, 218 P.3d 1056 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “The superior court also awarded Coplan $22,735 in attorneys’ fees as follows: $10,000 in attorneys’ fees for the administrative hearing under A.R.S. § 41-1007 (2004), $3,285 for the first judicial review, and $9,450 for the second judicial review, both based on A.”
Arizona Downs v. Turf Paradise, Inc., 682 P.2d 443 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “But see A.R.S. § 41-1007, which provides that "any person who is or may be affected" by a rule enacted by an agency may obtain declaratory relief concerning the validity of the rule.”
Goodman v. Superior Court in & for Maricopa, 665 P.2d 83 (Ariz. 1983).
“Arizona Revised Statutes § 41-1007(A) allows one affected by an agency rule to contest its validity by filing an action for declaratory relief in the superior court in addition to other remedies available.”
Washington Sch. Dist. No. 6 v. Superior Court, 541 P.2d 1137 (Ariz. 1975).
“The term includes the amendment or repeal of a prior rule, but does not include statements concerning only the internal management of any agency and not affecting private rights or procedures available to the public, or declaratory rulings issued pursuant to § 41-1007 or…”
Arizona Dep't of AeroNautics v. Fred Harvey Transp. Co., 561 P.2d 322 (Ariz. 1977).
· cites it 5× “Thus, A.R.S. § 41-1007 specifically provides that “in addition to any other ground which may exist, the rule may be declared invalid for a substantial failure to comply with the provisions of this article .”
Flanigan v. Arizona registrar/r&c (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Because Flanigan does not demonstrate where in the proceedings before this appeal he unsuccessfully requested attorneys’ fees, we deny his request for fees under A.R.S. § 41-1007(E) (authorizing discretionary fee award “[i]f fees and other costs were denied by the [ALJ] because…”
Valdez v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 577 P.2d 730 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 4× “As to the appellant’s contention that the Commission did not follow the requirements of A.R.S. § 41-1007 in that it did not make “findings and statements” as prerequisites to the use of the emergency procedures of A.”
Thomas v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 698 P.2d 1298 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“does not include statements concerning only the internal management of any agency and not affecting private rights or procedures available to the public, or declaratory rulings issued pursuant to § 41-1007 or intra-agency memoranda. The standard recommended by the Medical…”
Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 553 P.2d 1228 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).
“The term includes the amendment or repeal of a prior rule, but does not include statements concerning only the internal management of any agency and not affecting private rights or procedures available to the public, or declaratory rulings issued pursuant to § 41-1007 or…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1007(A) — 3 cases
Coplan v. Arizona State Bd. of Appraisal, 218 P.3d 1056 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“The superior court also awarded Coplan $22,735 in attorneys’ fees as follows: $10,000 in attorneys’ fees for the administrative hearing under A.R.S. § 41-1007 (2004), $3,285 for the first judicial review, and $9,450 for the second judicial review, both based on A.”
Goodman v. Superior Court in & for Maricopa, 665 P.2d 83 (Ariz. 1983).
“Arizona Revised Statutes § 41-1007(A) allows one affected by an agency rule to contest its validity by filing an action for declaratory relief in the superior court in addition to other remedies available.”
Valdez v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 577 P.2d 730 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
“As to the appellant’s contention that the Commission did not follow the requirements of A.R.S. § 41-1007 in that it did not make “findings and statements” as prerequisites to the use of the emergency procedures of A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1007(A)(1) — 1 case
E. Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 79 P.3d 86 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“Apparently, the Commission reads A.R.S. § 41-1007 (2003), which generally mandates an award of attorneys’ fees against state agencies in administrative proceedings in which the agency’s position was not “substantially justified,” § 41-1007(A)(1), as superseding the above-quoted…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1007(E) — 1 case
Flanigan v. Arizona registrar/r&c (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
“Because Flanigan does not demonstrate where in the proceedings before this appeal he unsuccessfully requested attorneys’ fees, we deny his request for fees under A.R.S. § 41-1007(E) (authorizing discretionary fee award “[i]f fees and other costs were denied by the [ALJ] because…”
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.