City of Chandler v. Roosevelt Water Conserv. Dist., No. CV-24-0267-PR (April 28, 2026) (J. Montgomery) https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2026/CV240267-PR.pdf?ver=4DTJ00_aCYU8mSJcPYy6hA%3d%3d

COMMON LAW DOCTRINE OF NULLUM TEMPUS (TIME DOES NOT RUN AGAINST THE KING) RENDERS 1 YEAR SOL, A.R.S. § 12-821, INAPPLICABLE TO PUBLIC ENTITY BRINGING CLAIM AGAINST ANOTHER PUBLIC ENTITY WHERE THE STATUTE DOES NOT EXPRESSLY ABROGATE THE DOCTRINE

This case involves a dispute between the City of Chandler [Chandler], an Arizona municipal corporation, Ariz. Const. art. 13, §1, and the Roosevelt Water Conservation District [RWCD], a political subdivision of the state, Ariz. Const. art. 13, § 7; A.R.S. § 48-2901 et seq. over their Domestic Water Service Agreement. RWCD claims the agreement terminated and quit delivering water.  Ultimately, Chandler filed suit against RWCD which moved for summary judgment arguing the one-year statute of limitations, A.R.S. § 12-821, barred the claim. Chandler filed a cross motion arguing each failure to deliver water by RWCD was a new breach thus not time barred and the doctrine of nullum tempus rendered the statute of limitations inapplicable. The Maricopa County Superior Court granted Chandler's motion and denied RWCD's motion. RWCD appealed and the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed finding the statute of limitations barred Chandler's claim.  The Arizona Supreme Court reversed and remanded the superior court with instructions and vacated the court of appeals decision.

The common law doctrine of nullum tempus occurrit regi  “time does not run against the king” has been applied by Arizona courts even before statehood. Stated simply, the doctrine holds that—" “statutes of limitations which govern between private individuals do not apply in proceedings on behalf of the state.” The doctrine reasons that statute of limitations exist to prevent fraud and because the government acts for the public good, and not an individual, fraud is not a risk. 

Because abrogation of the common law requires

an express legislative directive, it is not surprising that our courts have

consistently maintained that “the state itself is always and under all

circumstances exempt from all statutes of limitations, unless there is some

particular provision of law expressly making it subject thereto.

                                               .   .   .   .

In sum, § 12-821 and its predecessor statutes have coexisted

with nullum tempus without any conflict for nearly a century. This is

because § 12-821 is solely concerned with private-plaintiff actions against

the state. There is nothing in § 12-821's history that suggests it was

expressly intended to abrogate the well-established nullum tempus doctrine.