Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Freightways, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission, 630 P.2d 541.

52 citing documents.

Flood Control v. Abc Sand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Flood Control v. Abc Sand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶41 Finally, unlike Freightways, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, in which the Arizona Corporation Commission was estopped from denying the validity of a certificate of public convenience and necessity fifty years after its issuance because of a defect in the certificate, here the District was not refusing to recognize an existing mining permit.
Gorman v. Pima County 287 P.3d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Gorman v. Pima County 287 P.3d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Rather, estoppel applies only to the authorized acts of government officials when necessary to prevent a “serious injustice.” Freightways, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
But the portion of Valencia Energy Co. we cited was merely repeating what the supreme court had previously said in Freightways
Lowe v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Lowe v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
The court in Valencia further stated “all these requirements are conditioned by the general rule that estoppel may apply against the state only when the public interest will not be unduly damaged and when its application will not substantially and adversely affect the exercise of governmental powers.” 959 P.2d at 1269; see also Freightways, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n
Eaton v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 79 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Eaton v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 79 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
at ¶ 33 (citing Freightways, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, , ).
Lake Havasu City v. Arizona Department of Health Services 48 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Lake Havasu City v. Arizona Department of Health Services 48 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
That delay and alleged prejudice provide the underpinning for Lake Havasu’s laches and estoppel claims, , (laches requires proof of injury because of another party’s lack of diligence); Freightways, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, , (equitable estoppel requires proof of reliance upon another’s conduct to one’s detriment), but we do not find that the delay prejudiced Lake Havasu thus conclude that its arguments are without merit.
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Freightways, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, , quoting Silver City Consol.
Hansson v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 985 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Hansson v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 985 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Miller, , (citation omitted), vacated in part on other grounds, , see also Freightways, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, -48 , -44 (1981).
Pingitore v. Town of Cave Creek 981 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Pingitore v. Town of Cave Creek 981 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
The court began with a reminder that, in Freightways v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, , it announced its disapproval of the “no estoppel against the sovereign” rule.
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 959 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1998
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 959 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1998
Freightways, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n
State v. Garcia 931 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Garcia 931 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
See also Freightways, , (“where the application of estoppel will not affect the exercise by the state of its governmental powers and sovereignty, ...
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Distinguished Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
We distinguished Freightways, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, , on which Valencia relies, because it was not a tax case and “did not implicate article 9, section 2 [sic, 1] of the Arizona Constitution or the concerns for the revenue expressed in Crane and Duhame.” PCS, 186 Ariz. at 544 , 925 P.2d at 685 .
Rivera v. City of Phoenix 925 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Rivera v. City of Phoenix 925 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Estoppel is generally not applicable against the state except where “the government’s wrongful conduct threatens to work a serious injustice and if the public interest would not be unduly damaged by the imposition of estoppel.” Freightways, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, , Carlson v. Arizona Dep’t of Economic Sec.
PCS, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 925 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
PCS, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 925 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Freightways Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, , was not a tax case and did not implicate article 9 section 2 of the Arizona Constitution or the concerns for the revenue expressed in Crane or Duhame.
Carlson v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 906 P.2d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Carlson v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 906 P.2d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Freightways, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n
Rondberg v. Arizona Board of Chiropractic Examiners 897 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Rondberg v. Arizona Board of Chiropractic Examiners 897 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 851 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 851 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Thus, in Freightways, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, , the Arizona Supreme Court recognized that the “no estoppel” rule had often resulted in injustice, and retreated substantially from its long-standing application of that rule.
Canon School Dist. 50 v. Wes Const. 848 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Canon School Dist. 50 v. Wes Const. 848 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 830 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 830 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
However, the trial court did accept Outdoor’s estoppel argument, finding that the prerequisites to the application of equitable estoppel against ADOT as a government entity existed in this case, citing Freightways v. Arizona Corporation Comm’n
Calmat of Arizona v. STATE EX REL., MILLER 836 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Calmat of Arizona v. STATE EX REL., MILLER 836 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Freightways, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n
Neal v. City of Kingman 810 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Neal v. City of Kingman 810 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Freightways, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, , (citing Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100, 104 , 84 A.L. R.2d 454, 461 (9th Cir.), cert.
Zavala v. Arizona State Personnel Board 766 P.2d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Zavala v. Arizona State Personnel Board 766 P.2d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
s, which inducement results in acts in reliance thereon, justifiably taken, which cause injur....” One who seeks to estop the state must not only prove these elements, but additionally prove that “the government’s wrongful conduct threatens to work a serious injustice” and that “the public interest would not be unduly damaged by the imposition of estoppel.” Freightways, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Com’n
Green v. Osborne 758 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1988
Green v. Osborne 758 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1988
United Farm Workers v. Arizona Agricultural Employment Relations Board 716 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
United Farm Workers v. Arizona Agricultural Employment Relations Board 716 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
That rule has, however, been relaxed in Arizona if “it would appear that where the application of estoppel will not affect the exercise by the state of its governmental powers and sovereignty, or bind it by unauthorized acts of its officers and employees, estoppel will, when justice dictates, be applied to the state.” Freightways
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 675 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1984
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 675 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1984
The state as well as the defendant may be estopped from bringing an action in this court, see United States v. Lazy FC Ranch, 481 F.2d 985, 989 (9th Cir.1973); accord, Freightways, , (citing Lazy FC Ranch, supra, with approval), even “when the government conduct complained of was in the form of inaction or silence.” Note, Equitable Estoppel of the Government, 79 Colum.L.Rev.