Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Whitfield Transportation, Inc. v. Brooks, 302 P.2d 526.

74 citing documents.

Bank of Ny v. Dodev 433 P.3d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Bank of Ny v. Dodev 433 P.3d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Comm’n, (emphasis added) (quoting Whitfield Transp., ).
State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
the settled rule of statutory construction that “[i]n so far as the provisions of a special statute are inconsistent with those of a general statute on the same subject, the special statute will control.” Desert Waters, Inc. v. Superior Court (City of Tucson), , ( , Whitfield Trans., , ).
Southwest Soil Remediation, Inc. v. City of Tucson 36 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Southwest Soil Remediation, Inc. v. City of Tucson 36 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
v. Brooks, , P.2d 183 (App.1993); Tempe Life Care Village, , Bailey v. Mars, 138 Conn. 593 , 87 A.2d 388 (1952); Berke v. Resolution Trust Corp., 483 N.W.2d 712 (Minn.App.1992); Shinn v. Kreul, 3
Curtis v. Morris 909 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Curtis v. Morris 909 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. O'CONNOR 827 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. O'CONNOR 827 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lightning "A" Ranch Venture v. Tankersley 779 P.2d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Lightning "A" Ranch Venture v. Tankersley 779 P.2d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Whitfield Transportation
Lightning "A" Ranch Venture v. Tankersley 775 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Lightning "A" Ranch Venture v. Tankersley 775 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Whitfield Transportation
Holm Development & Management, Inc. v. Superior Court 778 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Holm Development & Management, Inc. v. Superior Court 778 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
See Whitfield Transp., , -17 , 294 P. 837, 840-41 (1931).
Trebilcox v. Brown & Bain, P.A. 653 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Trebilcox v. Brown & Bain, P.A. 653 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
See, , Whitfield Transportation, , , 294 P. 837 (1931).
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
§ 40-254(F) prohibits the court from acting on interim rates until appellate review is completed, the Commission relies on Whitfield Transportation
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. Jt-180844 569 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. Jt-180844 569 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Whitfield Transportation, , In re Gilbert’s Estate
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Phelps Dodge Corp. 568 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1977
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Phelps Dodge Corp. 568 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1977
’ ” , quoting from Desert Waters
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Arizona Air Pollution Control Hearing Board 550 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1976
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Arizona Air Pollution Control Hearing Board 550 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1976
The necessity for a final administrative decision rule was carefully analyzed in Whitfield Transportation, , : “ * * * where an appeal had already been perfected from the judgment of the *245 lower court, the Commission’s revocation of the certificate it had theretofore issued to Whitfield was a direct and plain invasion of the appellate and revisory powers of this court.
DGP Trucking Co. v. Fopa Trucking Co. 547 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
DGP Trucking Co. v. Fopa Trucking Co. 547 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Under our Constitution and statutes, Corporation Commission orders must “remain in force pending the decision of the courts.” See Whitfield Transportation
State v. Hannagan's Meadow Lodge Corp. 543 P.2d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Criticized State v. Hannagan's Meadow Lodge Corp. 543 P.2d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Whitfield Transportation
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Arizona Air Pollution Control Hearing Board 535 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Arizona Air Pollution Control Hearing Board 535 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
1184 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1292 (1968): Whitfield *70 Transportation, , Hunt v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa, 21 Ariz.App.
Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission 528 P.2d 817 Ariz. 1974
Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission 528 P.2d 817 Ariz. 1974
This rationale is succinctly stated in Whitfield Transportation v. Brooks, supra [ , ], as follows: The jurisdiction of this court when properly invoked must be protected.
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
our Supreme Court held that the Commission was without jurisdiction to revoke a certificate in compliance with a Superior Court decision while that decision was pending appeal.
Castillo v. Industrial Commission 520 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Castillo v. Industrial Commission 520 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
294 P. 837 (1931); , 265 P. 609 (1928); Navajo Realty Co. v. County National Bank & Trust Co., , 250 P. 885 (1926).
Burkhardt v. Burkhardt 510 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1973
Burkhardt v. Burkhardt 510 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1973
Whitfield Transportation
O'Hair v. O'Hair 508 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1973
O'Hair v. O'Hair 508 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1973
See, e.. g., Whitfield Transportation, Inc. v.. Brooks
Arizona Corporation Commission v. Superior Court 480 P.2d 988 Ariz. 1971
Arizona Corporation Commission v. Superior Court 480 P.2d 988 Ariz. 1971
State Ex Rel. Larson v. Farley 471 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1970
State Ex Rel. Larson v. Farley 471 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1970
In so far as the provisions of a special statute are inconsistent with those of a general statute on the same subject, the special statute will control, , ; Whitfield Trans.
Webb v. Dixon 455 P.2d 447 Ariz. 1969
Followed Webb v. Dixon 455 P.2d 447 Ariz. 1969
One of the principles of statutory construction is that: “Where * * * there are two provisions applicable to the same subject, one general in its scope, and the other covering a limited portion only of the subject included in the general one, the special statute is to be considered as governing the exception.” Whitfield Transportation, , .
State v. Marcus 450 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1969
State v. Marcus 450 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1969