Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc., 83 P.3d 573.

33 citing documents.

Aps v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Power Coop., Inc., ¶ 30 (App. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Spector v. Wells Fargo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Power Coop., Inc., ¶ 117 (App. 2004).
Johnson Utilities LLC v. Arizona Corporation Ariz. 2020
Johnson Utilities LLC v. Arizona Corporation Ariz. 2020
Power Co-op, Inc., ¶ 47 (App. 2004) (holding that the Commission’s authority under article 15, section 14 to determine the fair value of PSCs is self-executing because this provision expressly grants the Commission power to determine fair value in setting rates).
Sun City v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Power Coop., Inc., ¶ 30 (App. 2004) (citing Ariz. Cmty.
Johnson v. Acc 438 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Power Coop., ¶ 54 (App. 2004).
Woodward v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Power Coop., Inc., ¶ 30 (App. 2004) (citations omitted), because public 4 The Commission approved § 19.1, but changed “the sunset for R- Basic Large” to September 1, 2018 because “there is sufficient evidence in the record and it is in the public interest for existing customers to have additional time to adequately consider
Doty-Perez v. Doty-Perez 426 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Power Co-op., Inc. , , 109-10 ¶ 46, , 587-88 (App. 2004) (noting, unless facially unconstitutional under any possible factual application, the "constitutionality [of a statute] can only be attacked as applied.").
Else v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Power Coop., Inc., ¶ 94 (App. 2004) (finding courts may review formalized agency decisions that are brought by an individual who has been concretely affected by the decision).
Woodward v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Power Co-op., Inc., ¶ 94 (App. 2004).
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corp. Commission 355 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Power Coop., Inc., , 105 n. 8, ¶ 21, , 583 n. 8 (App.2004) (“Although [US West ] held that this rate-of-retum method for rate setting may be inappropriate in a competitive environment, it affirmed the supreme court’s long-standing view that this method is properly employed in traditional, non-competitive markets.”).
Ruco v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Power Coop., Inc., n.8, ¶ 21, n.8 (App. 2004) (“Although [US West] held that this rate- of-return method for rate setting may be inappropriate in a competitive environment, it affirmed the supreme court’s long-standing view that this method is properly employed in traditional, non-competitive markets.”).
Miller v. Arizona Corp. Commission 251 P.3d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
And in Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., ¶ 2 , this Court examined Commission regulations establishing competition in the electric industry.
State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Cain v. Horne 183 P.3d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Power Coop., Inc., , ¶42, , 587 (App. 2004); we “give words their natural, obvious and ordinary meaning unless defined otherwise in the constitution,” Ariz. Minority Coal, for Fair Redist’g v. Ariz. Indep.
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 177 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 177 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Power Co-op., Inc., ¶ 1 , (recognizing that electric industry has shifted from a system of regulated monopolies to a competitive market for provision of some services).
State v. Hasson 177 P.3d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Power Corp., Inc., , 125, ¶ 134, , 604 (App.2004)(interpreting statute to give it a fair and sensible meaning, rather than a construction that frustrates legislative intent); ¶ 11 , (‘We apply practical, common sense constructions rather than hypertechnical on
Hernandez v. Lynch 167 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Hernandez v. Lynch 167 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Power Co-op., Inc., ¶ 29 , (citing Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 , 113 S.Ct.
Hunt v. Richardson 163 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Hunt v. Richardson 163 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Power Co-op., Inc., ¶ 117
Robson Ranch Quail Creek, LLC v. Pima County 161 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Power Coop., Inc., 207 Ariz. 95, ¶ 101
Cullum v. Cullum 160 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Cullum v. Cullum 160 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Power Co-op., Inc., ¶ 117
Southwest Transmission Cooperative, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 142 P.3d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 121 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Romero v. Southwest Ambulance, rural/metro, City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Power Coop., Inc., P.3d 573 (App. 2004).
Grand Canyon Trust v. Arizona Corp. Commission 107 P.3d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Citing this court’s recent decision in Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Electric Power Coop., Inc., , the Trust argues that this amounts to an abrogation of the Commission’s independent responsibility to make a determination of the need for power.
Arizona-American Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 98 P.3d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Arizona-American Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 98 P.3d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Grammatico v. Industrial Commission 90 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Grammatico v. Industrial Commission 90 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Power Co-op., Inc., ¶ 46 , -88 (App.2004).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by