Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Maricopa County v. Corporation Commission of Ariz., 289 P.2d 183.

78 citing documents.

Wagner v. Coronet Hotel 458 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Wagner v. Coronet Hotel 458 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
In Rogers the Arizona Supreme Court held that a cross-assignment of error could be made where the purpose was to uphold the order, , There, the Supreme Court quoted from United States v. American Railway Express Co., 265 U.S. 425, 435 , 44 S.Ct.
Aegerter v. Duncan 437 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Aegerter v. Duncan 437 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Boudreaux v. Edwards 437 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Boudreaux v. Edwards 437 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
the Supreme Court stated: “ * * * In the absence of a cross-appeal the appellee can defend only as to the items allowed below and cannot present rejected claims.
State Land Department v. Painted Desert Park, Inc. 428 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1967
State Land Department v. Painted Desert Park, Inc. 428 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1967
this Court said: “ * * * if appeliee in its brief seeks only to support or defend and uphold the judgment of the lower court from which the opposing party appeals, a cross-appeal is not necessary.
Midway Lumber, Inc. v. Redman 421 P.2d 904 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Midway Lumber, Inc. v. Redman 421 P.2d 904 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State Land Department v. Painted Desert Park, Inc. 416 P.2d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
State Land Department v. Painted Desert Park, Inc. 416 P.2d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 412 P.2d 272 Ariz. 1966
Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 412 P.2d 272 Ariz. 1966
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Fred Harvey Transportation Co. 388 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1964
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Fred Harvey Transportation Co. 388 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1964
We construed this section, then § 69-249 A.C.A.1939, , in this language : “The court was further without authority under any set of circumstances to do more than to affirm, modify or set aside the order and decision of the commission as expressly provided by the provisions of section 69-249, A.C.A.
County of Pima v. Southern Pacific Co. 386 P.2d 400 Ariz. 1963
County of Pima v. Southern Pacific Co. 386 P.2d 400 Ariz. 1963
1 , this Court held that the- Corporation Commission could not force a county to pay half the cost of installing flashing signals at a crossing.
Merryweather v. Pendleton 367 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1962
Merryweather v. Pendleton 367 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1962
Defendant made certain cross-assignments of error which seem proper in this case since they tend “only to support or defend and uphold the judgment of the lower court * *
Southern Pacific Co. v. Corporation Commission 329 P.2d 883 Ariz. 1958
Southern Pacific Co. v. Corporation Commission 329 P.2d 883 Ariz. 1958
that § 69-228, A.C.A.1939 (now A.R.S.
Murphey v. Gray 327 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1958
Murphey v. Gray 327 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1958
Southern Pacific Company v. Corporation Commission 321 P.2d 224 Ariz. 1958
Southern Pacific Company v. Corporation Commission 321 P.2d 224 Ariz. 1958
Blakely Oil, Inc. v. Wells Truckways, Ltd. 320 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1958
Blakely Oil, Inc. v. Wells Truckways, Ltd. 320 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1958