Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Corp. Commission v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 228 P.2d 749.

41 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. John Logan Brown Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. John Logan Brown Ariz. 2025
Catamount v. Kurtz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Catamount v. Kurtz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Flynn v. Olsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Distinguished Flynn v. Olsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Co., (noting language "unnecessary to sustain the judgment of the court" may be considered "dictum").
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
Simon v. MARICOPA MEDICAL CENTER 234 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Simon v. MARICOPA MEDICAL CENTER 234 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
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
Co., (“dictum” is “language .
Varsity Gold, Inc. v. Porzio 45 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Varsity Gold, Inc. v. Porzio 45 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Co., , (language unnecessary to sustain judgment is dicta).
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corp. Commission 20 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corp. Commission 20 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 12 Relying on the supreme court’s decision in Arizona Corporation Commission v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., , the Arizona Attorney General acknowledged that the superior court has the authority to order a temporary rate increase without a full rate hearing.
State v. Martinez 854 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Martinez 854 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Co., , (language unnecessary to sustain the judgment is dictum).
State v. Altamirano 803 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Altamirano 803 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Arizona Corp. Comm’n v. Mountain States T. & T Co.
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
State v. Flint 756 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Flint 756 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 604 P.2d 1144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
MOUNTAIN STATES, ETC. v. Ariz. Corp. Com'n 604 P.2d 1144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
MOUNTAIN STATES, ETC. v. Ariz. Corp. Com'n 604 P.2d 1144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 604 P.2d 1144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Citizens Utilities Co. 584 P.2d 1175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Citizens Utilities Co. 584 P.2d 1175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Co., , 10 if construed as granting to trial courts the jurisdiction to approve the setting of rates is erroneous and should be overruled and (3) that the perfection of the Commission’s appeal ousted the trial court of jurisdiction to allow the setting of interim rates.
Scates v. Arizona Corp. Commission 578 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Scates v. Arizona Corp. Commission 578 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Arizona Corp. Comm’n v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.
Sun City Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 556 P.2d 1126 Ariz. 1976
Sun City Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 556 P.2d 1126 Ariz. 1976
Sun City Water Co. v. Arizona Corporation Com'n 547 P.2d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Sun City Water Co. v. Arizona Corporation Com'n 547 P.2d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Co., , Sun City Water Company should be entitled to fix a just and reasonable schedule of interim rates, pending action by the Commission.
Universal Construction Co. v. Arizona Consolidated Masonry & Plastering Contractors Ass'n 377 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1963
Universal Construction Co. v. Arizona Consolidated Masonry & Plastering Contractors Ass'n 377 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1963
See also Arizona Corporation Commission v. Mountain States T. & T. Co., , relating to the judiciary provisions preceding the 1960 amendment.
Northern States Power Co. v. City of St. Paul 99 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 1959
Whitfield Transportation, Inc. v. Brooks 302 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1956
Whitfield Transportation, Inc. v. Brooks 302 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1956
Co., , in urging this and other propositions.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by