“Time Does Not Run Against the King” –- Arizona Supreme Court Confirms Government Entity Plaintiffs Are Not Bound by A.R.S. § 12-821’s One-Year Statute of Limitations

In a significant decision for Arizona cities, towns, counties, districts, and other public bodies, the Arizona Supreme Court declared that the one-year statute of limitations in A.R.S. § 12-821 does not apply to claims by a government-entity plaintiff against another government entity. In City of Chandler v. Roosevelt Water Conservation District, No. CV-24-0267-PR, 2026 WL 1141802 (Ariz. Apr. 28, 2026), the Court held that A.R.S. § 12-821 does not abrogate the common-law doctrine of nullum tempus occurrit regi — “time does not run against the king.” In layman’s terms, this doctrine provides that statutes of limitations do not run against government entities absent a clear legislative directive. The practical takeaway is straightforward: a public-entity plaintiff is not required to sue another public entity within one year to preserve its claim.

The case arose from a 2002 water service agreement under which Roosevelt Water Conservation District (“RWCD”) agreed to sell and deliver water to the City of Chandler (“Chandler”) through 2086 unless terminated sooner. After RWCD asserted that the agreement had ended and later refused Chandler’s requests for water deliveries, Chandler sued to enforce the contract. RWCD argued the case was untimely under A.R.S. § 12-821’s one-year limitations period for actions against public entities. The Arizona Supreme Court rejected that argument, vacated the court of appeals’ decision, and held the agreement remains valid and enforceable.

The Court’s reasoning matters well beyond the water-dispute context. Since before statehood, Arizona has consistently recognized the nullum tempus doctrine. The Court reiterated that common-law doctrines are not displaced unless the Legislature says so expressly or by necessary implication. A.R.S. § 12-821 did neither. The Court emphasized that nullum tempus turns on the identity of the plaintiff—indeed, “the nature of the plaintiff, not the litigation,” controls. Because A.R.S. § 12-821 focuses on actions against public entities and says nothing about public entities as plaintiffs, it was not enough to eliminate this longstanding common-law doctrine.

The Court emphasized that the Legislature knows how to make the State or its political subdivisions subject to statutes of limitations when that is its intent. The Court provided a non-exhaustive list of limitations statutes that expressly apply to claims by government entities.

Equally important, the Court rejected two narrowing arguments that often surface in public-entity disputes. First, it held that broad wording like “all actions” is not, by itself, the type of clear statement needed to override nullum tempus. Second, it rejected a governmental-versus-proprietary distinction, confirming that a public entity does not lose the protection of nullum tempus merely because the dispute arises in a utility, contract, or other operational setting that may appear to be commercial. This is noteworthy for public entities that operate enterprise functions or under long-term service agreements.

For government entities, the practical implication is reassuring. When disputes arise with another public entity—over intergovernmental agreements, utilities, infrastructure, reimbursement obligations, land use, or other long-term public arrangements—the plaintiff public entity need not rush to the courthouse within A.R.S. § 12-821’s narrow one-year period. The Arizona Supreme Court’s decision preserves room for negotiation, administrative resolution, board or council consideration, and intergovernmental problem-solving before litigation becomes necessary. Public entities should still evaluate contract-specific notice provisions, other statutory prerequisites, evidence-preservation obligations, and the practical costs of waiting to file suit. But on the question the Court decided, the message is clear: nullum tempus remains intact absent express legislative change, and government entities are not required to file suit against fellow government entities within one year.

Fennemore attorneys Sean Hood, Taylor Burgoon, and Timothy Berg served as legal counsel to the City of Chandler, helping secure a ruling that preserves flexibility for public entities to resolve disputes without the pressure of a strict one-year deadline.

Sean Hood chairs the firm’s water law practice, one of the preeminent water groups in the Western United States. He has more than two decades of experience advising Fortune 500 companies and other businesses on a broad range of disputes involving water rights, environmental permitting, “business divorce” and other disputes involving partnership and shareholder interests, breach of contract, business torts, and real estate. He can be reached at shood@fennemorelaw.com.

Taylor Burgoon is a business litigation attorney focusing on complex business disputes primarily in Arizona. Taylor’s practice encompasses litigation and appeals in a broad range of areas, including representing government entities and businesses in breach of contract disputes, high-risk tort defense, real property disputes, and email wire fraud scams, among other things. She can be reached at tburgoon@fennemorelaw.com.

Tim Berg is a distinguished attorney in our business litigation practice group, focusing primarily in the areas of civil appeals, state constitutional and public law, public records law, and public utilities regulation. Throughout his career as an appellate attorney, he has participated in the briefing or argument of more than 800 appeals before the United States Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Tenth Circuit, the Second Circuit, the Fourth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit, the Eleventh Circuit, the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court of Arizona and both divisions of the Arizona Court of Appeals. He represents state and local governments and agencies, as well as companies and individuals in disputes with the government. He can be reached at tberg@fennemorelaw.com.