Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Campbell v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., 586 P.2d 987.

35 citing documents.

Burns v. Apsc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Burns v. Apsc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sun City v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sun City v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. v. City of Tucson 381 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. v. City of Tucson 381 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Bailey-Null v. ValueOptions 209 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Bailey-Null v. ValueOptions 209 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Co., -32 , -93 (App.1978)).
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Redlon 156 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Redlon 156 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Co., see Coconino County, 148 P.3d at 1159 (exhaustion of remedies doctrine applies where claim cognizable in first instance by administrative agency, but not “when the jurisdiction of the agency is being contested”); Estate of Bohn, 174 Ariz. at 248, 848 P.2d at 3
City of Bisbee v. Arizona Water Company Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
City of Bisbee v. Arizona Water Company Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Co., (“The 9 doctrine [of exhaustion] applies only when an administrative agency has original jurisdiction.”).
Coconino County v. Antco, Inc. 148 P.3d 1155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Coconino County v. Antco, Inc. 148 P.3d 1155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
& Tel., Co., -28 , -89 (App.1978) (reviewing dismissal without prejudice based on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction).
Wonders v. Pima County 89 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Wonders v. Pima County 89 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Co., , quoting 3 Kenneth Culp Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.01, at 57 (1958).
Qwest Corporation v. Mark McMahon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Qwest Corporation v. Mark McMahon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
st amended complaint, alleging Qwest had violated § 40-361 and had charged him “and all others similarly situated an excessive fee for inside telephone wire maintenance, which is neither a just nor a reasonable fee.” But McMahon did oppose the motion as to the remaining counts of consumer fraud and negligent misrepresentation, relying on Campbell v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., P.2d 987 (App. 1978).
Southwest Soil Remediation, Inc. v. City of Tucson 36 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Southwest Soil Remediation, Inc. v. City of Tucson 36 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Co., , quoting Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570, 574 , 72 S.Ct.
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 976 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1999
Hamilton v. State 925 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hamilton v. State 925 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Co., , (noting that the exhaustion rule applies when an administrative agency has original jurisdiction over the subject matter).
Medina v. Arizona Department of Transportation 916 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Medina v. Arizona Department of Transportation 916 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Johnson v. Mofford 890 P.2d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Johnson v. Mofford 890 P.2d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Original Apartment Movers, Inc. v. Waddell 880 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Original Apartment Movers, Inc. v. Waddell 880 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
& Tel Co., -30 , -91 (App.1978) (exhaustion doctrine determines when judicial review is available; primary jurisdiction doctrine determines who should, initially determine case).
Estate of Bohn v. Waddell 848 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Estate of Bohn v. Waddell 848 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
St. Mary's Hospital & Health Center v. State 721 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
St. Mary's Hospital & Health Center v. State 721 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
J.W. Hancock Enterprises, Inc. v. Arizona State Registrar of Contractors 690 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
J.W. Hancock Enterprises, Inc. v. Arizona State Registrar of Contractors 690 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Applying the primary jurisdiction test discerned from Campbell v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., , appellees conclude that the Registrar properly resolved the contractual dispute incidental to its regulatory function.