Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tucson Rapid Transit Co. v. Old Pueblo Transit Co., 289 P.2d 406.

29 citing documents.

State Ex Rel. Dandoy v. City of Phoenix 651 P.2d 862 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State Ex Rel. Dandoy v. City of Phoenix 651 P.2d 862 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Tucson Warehouse & Transfer Co. v. Al’s Transfer
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 644 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 644 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
As to similar statements that Arizona operates under a “regulated monopoly” as to public service corporations, see Corporation Commission v. Peoples Freight Line, Inc., , , Trico Electric Cooperative
Kunkle Transfer & Storage Co. v. Superior Court 526 P.2d 1270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Kunkle Transfer & Storage Co. v. Superior Court 526 P.2d 1270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Overpeck v. Pioneer Transportation Co. 486 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Overpeck v. Pioneer Transportation Co. 486 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Arizona Corporation Commission v. Superior Court 459 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1969
Arizona Corporation Commission v. Superior Court 459 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1969
Arizona Corporation Commission v. People’s Freight Lines, Inc., , ; , ; , ; , .
Corporation Commission v. Pacific Motor Trucking Co. 412 P.2d 33 Ariz. 1966
Corporation Commission v. Pacific Motor Trucking Co. 412 P.2d 33 Ariz. 1966
and cases cited therein.
Tucson Gas, Electric Light & Power Co. v. Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. 406 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Tucson Gas, Electric Light & Power Co. v. Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. 406 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
., that the corporation commission has primary jurisdiction and that a complaining public service corporation must first exhaust administrative remedies before' that body antecedent to seeking injunctive relief, it would seem that the cases of Pacific Greyhound Lines v. Sun Valley Bus Lines, Inc., , , (1950), , , (1955), are controllifig and adverse to that contention.
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Pacific Motor Trucking Co. 398 P.2d 114 Ariz. 1964
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Pacific Motor Trucking Co. 398 P.2d 114 Ariz. 1964
Whitfield Transportation v. Tucson Warehouse & Transfer Co., , ; , ; , ; Arizona Corporation Commission v. Hopkins, 52 Ari
Davis v. Corporation Commission 393 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1964
Davis v. Corporation Commission 393 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1964
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Southern Union Gas Co., 76 Ariz. .373, ; , ; , 289 P.2d •406.
Visco v. State Ex Rel. Pickrell 388 P.2d 155 Ariz. 1963
Visco v. State Ex Rel. Pickrell 388 P.2d 155 Ariz. 1963
C, “ * * * the commission may * * * issue a certificate only when the existing common motor carrier * * * will not provide service deemed satisfactory by the commission.” Thus, Arizona has adopted completely the “regulated monopoly” theory, and it has been consistently applied by this Court, , and cases cited therein.
Dallas v. Arizona Corporation Commission 346 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1959
Dallas v. Arizona Corporation Commission 346 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1959
Walker v. De Concini 341 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1959
Walker v. De Concini 341 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1959
Old Pueblo Transit Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 329 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1958
Old Pueblo Transit Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 329 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1958
Whitfield Transportation, Inc. v. Reliable Transportation Co. 316 P.2d 496 Ariz. 1957
Whitfield Transportation, Inc. v. Reliable Transportation Co. 316 P.2d 496 Ariz. 1957
Upon authority of the Whitfield decisions, supra; , , , , the judgment is affirmed.
Application of Skousen 289 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1955