Cited by

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

73 citing documents.

State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commission 693 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commission 693 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
The Commission’s reliance on State v. Tucson Gas, Electric Light & Power Co., , 138 P. 781 (1914) , is also misplaced.
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 645 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1982
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 645 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1982
Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., , , State v. Tucson Gas, Electric Light and Power Company, , 138 P. 781 (1914).
Tucson Community Development & Design Center, Inc. v. City of Tucson 641 P.2d 1298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Tucson Community Development & Design Center, Inc. v. City of Tucson 641 P.2d 1298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
that: “The right to maintain such suits is based upon the taxpayers’ equitable ownership of such funds and their liability to replenish the public treasury for the deficiency which would be caused by the misappropriation.” 66 Ariz. at 386 , 189 P.2d at 212 .
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 645 P.2d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 645 P.2d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Arizona Constitution, art. XV, § 3; , Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Company, , , State v. Tucson Gas, Electric Light and Power Company, , 138 P. 781 (1914).
Dail v. City of Phoenix 624 P.2d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Dail v. City of Phoenix 624 P.2d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
the Supreme Court held that the taxpayers of a municipality had standing to maintain a suit to enjoin the illegal expenditure of municipal funds.
Smith v. Graham County Community College District 600 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Smith v. Graham County Community College District 600 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Berghorn v. Reorganized School Dist.
Morris v. Arizona Corporation Commission 539 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Morris v. Arizona Corporation Commission 539 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Secrist v. Diedrich 430 P.2d 448 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Secrist v. Diedrich 430 P.2d 448 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
22 Am.Jur.2d Declaratory Judgments § 83, pp. 946-47; 79 C.J.S.
Arizona State Land Department v. McFate 348 P.2d 912 Ariz. 1960
Arizona State Land Department v. McFate 348 P.2d 912 Ariz. 1960
§ 12-1841, in any proceeding in which a “statute, ordinance or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, *145 the attorney general of the state shall also be served with a copy of the proceeding and be entitled to be heard.” , , 213: “The object of this requirement is to protect the state and its citizens should the parties be indifferent to the outcome of the litigation.” See also, , .
Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Company 294 P.2d 378 Ariz. 1956
Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Company 294 P.2d 378 Ariz. 1956
rendered should be made, and it is made the duty of the Commission to ascertain such value, not for legislative use, but for its own use, in arriving at just and reasonable rates and charges, and to that end the public service corporations are required to furnish the Commission all the assistance in their power.” The foregoing pronouncement was subsequently approved in Ethington v. Wright, 1948, , ; While the interpretation concerning rate base was dicta in these cases, we approve the same.
Arens v. Village of Rogers 61 N.W.2d 508 Minn. 1953
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. 228 P.2d 749 Ariz. 1951
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. 228 P.2d 749 Ariz. 1951