Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Ralston, 196 P.2d 470.

38 citing documents.

Johnson v. Swing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Johnson v. Swing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
NICKERSON v. GREEN VALLEY RECREATION, INC. 265 P.3d 1108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
NICKERSON v. GREEN VALLEY RECREATION, INC. 265 P.3d 1108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
v. Ralston, (rights of members of private organization governed by articles of incorporation and bylaws, which constitute contract between members and organization); Restatement § 6.7 (common- intere
Aranda v. Cardenas, M.D. Nes Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Aranda v. Cardenas, M.D. Nes Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
v. Ralston, (“If th[e] issue [of capacity to sue] is not raised by motion before the answer is filed, it must be set forth in the answer as an affirmative defense.”) (emphasis added); see also Sirek v. Fairfield Snowbowl, Inc., (App.
City of Bisbee v. Arizona Water Company Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
City of Bisbee v. Arizona Water Company Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood 98 P.3d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood 98 P.3d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
v. Ralston, , (“It is proper to ask for and receive injunctive or other relief [in a DRA] where the facts warrant it.”); , (“It ...
Jennings v. Woods 982 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1999
Jennings v. Woods 982 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1999
v. Ralston, , (“No judicial power is vested in or can be exercised by the corporation commission unless that power is expressly granted by the constitution.”).
Land Department v. O'Toole 739 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Land Department v. O'Toole 739 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
J.W. Hancock Enterprises, Inc. v. Arizona State Registrar of Contractors 690 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
J.W. Hancock Enterprises, Inc. v. Arizona State Registrar of Contractors 690 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Camelot relies on the decisions in Trico Electric Cooperative, , and General Cable Corp. v. Citizens Utilities Co., 27 Ariz.App.
American Cable Television, Inc. v. Arizona Public Service Co. 693 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
American Cable Television, Inc. v. Arizona Public Service Co. 693 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
v. Ralston, , (holding that the Commission lacked authority to consider the construction or validity of a utility’s sale of electrical and water distribution lines under an option agreement); General Cable Corp. v. Citizens Util.
Campbell v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 586 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Campbell v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 586 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
While not expressly using the term “primary”, , that the construction of a contract and the determination of its validity are judicial functions for the courts, not the Corporation Commission.
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
is controlling in the case before us. In the Trico case the issue was whether an option contract between an electric cooperative was “unlawful, illegal and void,” similar to General Cable’s allegations herein.
Ballard v. Lawyers Title of Arizona 552 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Ballard v. Lawyers Title of Arizona 552 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Reeves v. ARIZONA AGGREGATE ASS'N HEALTH & WELF. F. 435 P.2d 829 Ariz. 1967
Reeves v. ARIZONA AGGREGATE ASS'N HEALTH & WELF. F. 435 P.2d 829 Ariz. 1967
Lurie v. Arizona Fertilizer & Chemical Co. 421 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1966
Lurie v. Arizona Fertilizer & Chemical Co. 421 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1966
§ 10-171, which states: “No corporation shall engage in any business other than that expressly authorized in its articles of incorporation or by the law under which it is organized.” , , wherein it was held that a corporation could not lawfully contract outside the object of its creation as defined in the law of its organization.
Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Corporation Commission 339 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1959
Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Corporation Commission 339 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1959
Baxter v. Harrison 321 P.2d 1019 Ariz. 1958
Baxter v. Harrison 321 P.2d 1019 Ariz. 1958
Trounstine v. Bauer, Pogue & Co. 2 Cir., 144 F.2d 379 ; Chemacid, S. A. v. Ferrotar Corporation, D.C., 3 F.R.D.
Aztec Land and Cattle Co. v. Navajo Realty Co. 283 P.2d 227 Ariz. 1955
Aztec Land and Cattle Co. v. Navajo Realty Co. 283 P.2d 227 Ariz. 1955
A , , and what was there said is applicable here: “* * * Denials that plaintiffs were land owners, customers of and dependent upon Eloy Company for electric energy and water are only addressed to question of plaintiffs’ capacity to sue.
Jasper v. Batt 264 P.2d 409 Ariz. 1953
Jasper v. Batt 264 P.2d 409 Ariz. 1953
Trounstine v. Bauer, Pogue & Co., 2 Cir., 144 F.2d 379 ; , .
Pacific Greyhound Lines v. Brooks 220 P.2d 477 Ariz. 1950
Pacific Greyhound Lines v. Brooks 220 P.2d 477 Ariz. 1950