Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ethington v. Wright, 189 P.2d 209.

73 citing documents.

Efg v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Efg v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
David Welch v. Cochise Board of Supervisors Ariz. 2021
David Welch v. Cochise Board of Supervisors Ariz. 2021
–30 ¶¶ 11–14 (App. 2019) (“[A]n allegation of an illegal expenditure has generally been held sufficient to establish standing.”).
Johnson Utilities LLC v. Arizona Corporation Ariz. 2020
Johnson Utilities LLC v. Arizona Corporation Ariz. 2020
Tucson Gas, 15 Ariz. at 298; -95 (1948).
Sun City v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sun City v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Its exclusive field may not be invaded by either the courts, the legislative, or executive.”); (“[I]n the matter of prescribing classifications, rates, and charges of public service corporations .
Johnson v. Acc 438 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Johnson v. Acc 438 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Years later, the court interpreted Article 15 and Pacific Greyhound to give the Commission the constitutional authority to enact “rules, regulations, and orders concerning such classifications, rates, and charges.” –92 (1948).
Woodward v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Woodward v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
ow[ing] its existence to provisions in the [state’s] organic law.” see also Ariz. Const. art. 15, §§ 1–19.
Freeport Minerals Corp. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n 419 P.3d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Freeport Minerals Corp. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n 419 P.3d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Consumer Office v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n , , ¶ 11, quoting Ethington v. Wright , , 389, ; see Ariz. Const. art. XV, §§ 1 - 19.
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corporation commission/arizona Water Company 377 P.3d 305 Ariz. 2016
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corporation commission/arizona Water Company 377 P.3d 305 Ariz. 2016
B. The Arizona Constitution grants the Commission broad discretion within its unique decision-making sphere ¶11 “The Arizona Corporation Commission, unlike such bodies in most states, is not a creature of the legislature, but is a constitutional body which owes its existence to provisions in the organic law of this state.” see Ariz. Const. art. 15 (“The Corporation Commission”), §§ 1–19.
Diane Merrill v. Robert Kenneth Merrill 362 P.3d 1034 Ariz. 2015
Diane Merrill v. Robert Kenneth Merrill 362 P.3d 1034 Ariz. 2015
The purpose of § 12-1841’s notice requirement is “to protect the state and its citizens should the parties be indifferent to the outcome of the litigation.”
Ruco v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corp. Commission 355 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corp. Commission 355 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
A. Fair Value Determination Requirement ¶ 18 “The Arizona Corporation Commission, unlike such bodies in most states, is not a creature of the legislature, but is a constitutional body which owes its existence to provisions in the organic law of this state.”
Ruco v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
A. Fair Value Determination Requirement ¶18 “The Arizona Corporation Commission, unlike such bodies in most states, is not a creature of the legislature, but is a constitutional body which owes its existence to provisions in the organic law of this state.”
Miller v. Arizona Corp. Commission 251 P.3d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Miller v. Arizona Corp. Commission 251 P.3d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
B. The Commission’s Authority ¶ 12 “The Arizona Corporation Commission, unlike such bodies in most states, is not a creature of the legislature, but is a constitutional body which owes its existence to provisions in the organic law of this state.”
Turken v. Gordon 207 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Turken v. Gordon 207 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
-87 , see also Napolitano, 206 Ariz. at 527, ¶ 30 , 81 P.3d at 318 .
DeVries v. State 198 P.3d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
DeVries v. State 198 P.3d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
As recognized by the Arizona Supreme Court, “[t]he object of this requirement is to protect the state and its citizens should the parties be indifferent to the outcome of the litigation.”
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano 160 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano 160 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Bennett v. Napolitano 81 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2003
Bennett v. Napolitano 81 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2003
The “taxpayer” argument was first raised in petitioners’ reply brief, P.2d 209 (1948).
US West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 34 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2001
US West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 34 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2001
Thirty-four years later, -92 , -16 (1948), we affirmed the need to use the fair value determination in setting just and reasonable rates.
Blanchard v. Show Low Planning & Zoning Commission 993 P.2d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Blanchard v. Show Low Planning & Zoning Commission 993 P.2d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
The cases relied upon by appellants to support this standing argument, , , are cases in which taxpayers were found to have sufficient standing to question expenditures of public monies.
City of Tucson v. Woods 959 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
City of Tucson v. Woods 959 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
the supreme court, construing the predecessor to this statute, held that “[sjince the Attorney General has the right to participate in such proceedings in behalf of *527 the state, we conclude that it was not error to include him as a party defendant.” Id.
Maricopa County v. State 928 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Maricopa County v. State 928 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(to challenge a municipal transaction not involving direct expenditure of municipal funds, taxpayer must show pecuniary loss to taxpayers as a class); , (municipal taxpayers had standing to sue to enjoin illegal expenditure of municipal funds).
John E. Shaffer Enterprises v. City of Yuma 904 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
John E. Shaffer Enterprises v. City of Yuma 904 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(equitable ownership principles that permit taxpayers to seek to enjoin waste or illegal expenditure of municipal funds permit same type of proceedings for state taxpayers concerning state funds); , (taxpayer’
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commission 848 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commission 848 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Arizona Corp. Commission v. State Ex Rel. Woods 830 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1992
Arizona Corp. Commission v. State Ex Rel. Woods 830 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1992
8 C. Interpretation of Ratemaking Power— Ethington v. Wright Ten years after Pacific Greyhound, this court examined the extent of the Commission’s
Southwest Gas Corp. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 818 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Southwest Gas Corp. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 818 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Pueblo Del Sol Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 772 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Pueblo Del Sol Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 772 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Morris v. Arizona Corporation Commission, 24 Ariz.App.