Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Town of Wickenburg v. Sabin, 200 P.2d 342.

28 citing documents.

Sun City Home Owners Association v. Acc Ariz. 2021
Sun City Home Owners Association v. Acc Ariz. 2021
In Town of Wickenburg v. Sabin, the Court noted that “[t]he law on discrimination as applied to public service corporations generally is well settled” and held that “[t]he charges must be equal to all for the same service under like circumstances.” (quoting 4 Eugene McQuillan, Mun.
Sun City v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sun City v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
however, our supreme court stated that “the law on discrimination as applied to public service corporations generally is well settled.” The court explained how a public service corporation can avoid acting in a discriminatory manner: The charges must be equal to all for the same service under
Woodward v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Woodward v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
§ 40-334.A.” our supreme court noted that “the law on discrimination as applied to public service corporations generally is well-settled.” The court explained how a public service corporation can avoid acting in a discriminatory manner: ‘The charges must be equal to all for the same service under like ci
Tdb Tucson Group, L.L.C. v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Tdb Tucson Group, L.L.C. v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
¶10 Based upon its broad interpretation of the statutory language, TDB argues a municipality acting in its capacity as a water utility must provide service to “all who reasonably require service within its area of actual operation.” To support its argument, P.2d 335 (1967), P.2d 342 (1948), P.2d 1021 (1969).
Fred Nackard Land Co. v. City of Flagstaff 238 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Fred Nackard Land Co. v. City of Flagstaff 238 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 21 , Plaintiffs argue that the Arizona Supreme Court has long recognized an implicit constitutional right under Art. 15, § 12 when a municipal corporation provides utility services.
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc. 83 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc. 83 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
See also *597 -78 , -44 (1948) (holding public service corporation obligated to furnish service to each patron at same price charged to other patrons for substantially similar service).
Tonto Creek Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission 864 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Tonto Creek Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission 864 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Marco Crane & Rigging v. Arizona Corp. Commission 746 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Marco Crane & Rigging v. Arizona Corp. Commission 746 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
the court stated: “A public service corporation is impressed with the obligation of furnishing its service to each patron at the same price it makes to every other patron for the same or substantially the same or similar service.
General Cable Corp. v. Citizens Utilities Co. 555 P.2d 350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
General Cable Corp. v. Citizens Utilities Co. 555 P.2d 350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Texas Power & Light Co. v. Doering Hotel Co., 147 S.W.2d 897 (Tex.Civ.App.1941); 4 E. McQuillan Municipal Corporations § 1829 (2nd ed. 1928).
Miller v. SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS'ASS'N 463 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Miller v. SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS'ASS'N 463 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Massengill v. Yuma County 456 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1969
Massengill v. Yuma County 456 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1969
Veach v. City of Phoenix 427 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1967
Veach v. City of Phoenix 427 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1967
Application of Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. 377 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1962
Application of Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. 377 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1962
we quoted with approval from McQuillin Municipal Corporations, 2d Ed. Vol.
De Santis v. Dixon 236 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1951
De Santis v. Dixon 236 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1951
Estate of Brashear, , ; , ; , .