Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District, 373 P.2d 722.

97 citing documents.

Maricopa v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Maricopa v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Improvement & Power Dist., ); Ariz. Const. art. 13, § 7 (treating alike irrigation and tax levying public improvement districts); A.R.S.
Arizonans for Second Chances v. Hobbs Ariz. 2020
Arizonans for Second Chances v. Hobbs Ariz. 2020
Improvement & Power Dist., (declining to read different terms to have the same meaning).
Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
or reduction plants, buildings, incinerators, dams and reservoirs.” Likewise, in City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, the supreme court defined the scope of the term “public utility” expansively and determined that a political subdivision of the state that engages “in a business traditionally affected with public interest” operates as a “public utility” , (holding A.R.S.
Gutierrez v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 249 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2011
Gutierrez v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 249 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2011
Improvement & Power Dist., , (refusing to read dissimilar terms to have the same meaning).
City of Chandler v. Arizona Department of Transportation 231 P.3d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
City of Chandler v. Arizona Department of Transportation 231 P.3d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Improvement & Power Dist., , (”[A]11 powers of government are lodged in the people, exercised by the state subject to constitutional limitations.
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
7 P.2d 722 (1962), to support its argument that the trial court erred in declaring AWC needed a franchise.
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc. 83 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc. 83 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Improvement & Power Dist., -100
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 64 P.3d 836 Ariz. 2003
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 64 P.3d 836 Ariz. 2003
Improvement & Power Dist., ).
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 35 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 35 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Improvement & Power Dist., , (although agricultural improvement district in question was “denominated a political subdivision of the state and entitled to all the immunities and benefits granted to municipalities by the Constitution or statutes,” district’s powers were “obviously limited to the purposes justifying i
KZPZ Broadcasting, Inc. v. Black Canyon City Concerned Citizens 13 P.3d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
KZPZ Broadcasting, Inc. v. Black Canyon City Concerned Citizens 13 P.3d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Williams Pipeline Co. v. Soo Line Railroad 597 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Saenz v. STATE FUND WORKERS'S COMP. INS. 943 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Saenz v. STATE FUND WORKERS'S COMP. INS. 943 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Improvement & Power Dist., , ).
Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City of Kingman 922 P.2d 308 Ariz. 1996
Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City of Kingman 922 P.2d 308 Ariz. 1996
Seeking to define “public utility service,” the court relied on our language in City of Mesa v. Salt River Project that section 9-516(A) “is all embra-cive, reaching every service wherein the public interest is affected by the character of the business conducted.”
Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City of Kingman 909 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City of Kingman 909 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
& Power Dist., , appeal dism’d, 372 U.S. 704 , 83 S.Ct.
In Re Property, Business, & Building Located at 2120 S. 4th Avenue, Lot 16, Block 8 of Resubdivision … 870 P.2d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
In Re Property, Business, & Building Located at 2120 S. 4th Avenue, Lot 16, Block 8 of Resubdivision … 870 P.2d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
On review, we will construe provisions to harmonize rather than contradict one another “if sound reason and good conscience allow.” City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District
Ban v. Quigley 812 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Ban v. Quigley 812 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Moreover, we construe provisions to harmonize rather than contradict one another “if sound reasons and good conscience allow.” City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District
Arizona Water Co. v. City of Bisbee 836 P.2d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Arizona Water Co. v. City of Bisbee 836 P.2d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Citing those statutes and the cases of City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District, , , Arizona Water claims that the city owes it damages for inversely condemning its equipment and facilities by distributing effluent to PD’s copper leaching operation.
Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 815 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 815 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(statute forbidding establishment of competing public utility service requires city to acquire utility’s interests by condemnation before providing electricity to annexed areas previously served by utility); Metropolitan Services, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 32 Wash.App.
Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 830 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 830 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
-23 , -38 (1971); City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District, -04
State Ex Rel. Ross v. Nance 798 P.2d 1295 Ariz. 1990
State Ex Rel. Ross v. Nance 798 P.2d 1295 Ariz. 1990
Austin v. Alfred 788 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Austin v. Alfred 788 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Improvement & Power Dist.
Cochise County v. Borowiec 781 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Cochise County v. Borowiec 781 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Courts will not interpret statutes in such a way as to make them “contradictory to each other but must, if sound reason and good conscience allow, construe [them] in harmony.” City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District
Porterfield v. Van Boening 744 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Porterfield v. Van Boening 744 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
& Power Dist., , appeal dismissed, 372 U.S. 704 , 83 S.Ct.
Moore v. City of Page 713 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Moore v. City of Page 713 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
See City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District, , Desert Waters
Calvert v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 697 P.2d 684 Ariz. 1985
Calvert v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 697 P.2d 684 Ariz. 1985
PF West, Inc. v. SUPER. CT. OF ARIZONA 676 P.2d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984