Chandler v. Roosevelt

── Chandler v. Roosevelt ── Court: Arizona Supreme Court Date: April 28, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA CITY OF CHANDLER, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. ROOSEVELT WATER CONSERVATION D ISTRICT, Defendant/Appellant. No. CV-24-0267-PR Filed April 28, 2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County The Honorable Joan M. Sinclair, Judge No. CV2022-011983 REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division One 258 Ariz. 403 (App. 2024) VACATED COUNSEL: Timothy J. Berg (argued), Sean T. Hood, Taylor N. Burgoon, Fennemore Craig, P.C., Phoenix, Attorneys for City of Chandler Robert A. Henry, Amanda Z. Weaver, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., Phoenix; Andrew Gould (argued), Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC, Phoenix, Attorneys for Roosevelt Water Conservation District Alexander W. Samuels, Luci D. Davis, Office of the Attorney General, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae State of Arizona Michael J. Pearce, Gammage & Burnham, P.L.C., Phoenix, Attorney for Amici Curiae Buckeye Water Conservation and Drainage District and Roosevelt Irrigation District  CHANDLER V. ROOSEVELT Opinion of the Court JUSTICE BEENE authored the Opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE TIMMER, VICE CHIEF JUSTICE LOPEZ, JUSTICES MONTGOMERY and KING, and JUDGE O’NEIL joined. * JUSTICE BOLICK dissented. JUSTICE BEENE, Opinion of the Court: ¶1 Since before statehood, Arizona law has consistently recognized that statutes of limitation do not apply against the state under the doctrine of nullum tempus occurrit regi—“time does not run against the king.” The Legislature subsequently codified A.R.S. § 12-821, which provides that “[a]ll actions against any public entity or public employee shall be brought within one year after the cause of action accrues and not afterward.” In this case, we determine what effect § 12-821 has on the nullum tempus doctrine in a lawsuit between two public entities. ¶2 Abrogation of a common law doctrine, including nullum tempus, requires an express legislative directive. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the Legislature’s enactment of § 12-821 did not expressly abrogate the nullum tempus doctrine for purposes of a lawsuit between two public entities, and thus § 12-821’s one-year limitation period does not apply in this case. BACKGROUND ¶3 The City of Chandler (“Chandler”) is an Arizona municipal corporation. See Ariz. Const. art. 13, § 1. The Roosevelt Water Conservation District (“RWCD”) is an irrigation and water district operated under Arizona law and is also a political subdivision of the state. See Ariz. Const. art. 13, § 7; A.R.S. § 48-2901 et seq. RWCD’s principal function is to deliver irrigation water to lands within its boundaries. A portion of such lands is located within Chandler’s city limits. ∗ Justice Maria Elena Cruz is recused from this matter. Pursuant to article 6, section 3 of the Arizona Constitution, the Honorable Christopher J. O’Neil, Judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, was designated to sit in this matter. 2  CHANDLER V. ROOSEVELT Opinion of the Court ¶4 In February 2002, Chandler entered into a Domestic Water Service Agreement (“Agreement”) with RWCD under which RWCD agreed to sell and deliver water to Chandler. Under the Agreement, RWCD could only terminate the Agreement if Chandler failed to make a required payment after thirty days written notice. The Agreement is effective until December 31, 2086, unless terminated sooner. ¶5 On April 26, 2018, RWCD notified Chandler that it believed the Agreement