Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Church v. Arizona Corp. Commission, 382 P.2d 222.

51 citing documents.

Hopi Tribe v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Hopi Tribe v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Church v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, Woodward v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 1 CA-CC 17-0003, 2018 WL 6498615, at *2, ¶ 8 (Ariz. App. Dec.
Woodward v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Woodward v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Staples v. Concord Equities, L.L.C. 209 P.3d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Staples v. Concord Equities, L.L.C. 209 P.3d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Church v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, -11
Heatec, Inc. v. R.W. Beckett Corp. 197 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Heatec, Inc. v. R.W. Beckett Corp. 197 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Church v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, -11
Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission 165 P.3d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission 165 P.3d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Church v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, , (Section 40-253 “governs the procedure on application for rehearing before the corporation commission.
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 976 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1999
Medina v. Arizona Department of Transportation 916 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Medina v. Arizona Department of Transportation 916 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Church v. Arizona Corporation Comm’n
Snyder v. Lena 703 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Snyder v. Lena 703 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
“Statutes are to be construed as a whole, and related provisions in pari materia are to be harmonized if possible,...” -111
Brown Wholesale Electric Co. v. Merchants Mutual Bonding Co. 713 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Brown Wholesale Electric Co. v. Merchants Mutual Bonding Co. 713 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Cogent Public Service, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 688 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Cogent Public Service, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 688 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
relied upon was raised in the petition for rehearing.”
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 645 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1982
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 645 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1982
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 645 P.2d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 645 P.2d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
The dissenting opinion refers to State v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, , for the contention that new evidence is always admissible in the superior court review of a rate case.
Campbell v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 586 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Campbell v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 586 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
General Cable Corp. v. Citizens Utilities Co., 27 Ariz.App.
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
See *538 State v. Arizona Corporation Comm’n, , ” Horizon Moving &amp
Horizon Moving & Storage Co. v. Williams 559 P.2d 193 Ariz. 1976
Horizon Moving & Storage Co. v. Williams 559 P.2d 193 Ariz. 1976
All Star Coach, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
All Star Coach, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. MacKey 489 P.2d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. MacKey 489 P.2d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Campbell v. Superior Court, County of Maricopa 462 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1969
Campbell v. Superior Court, County of Maricopa 462 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1969
), we must be guided by the presumption that the legislature did not intend to do a futile act by including a provision which is not operative or that is inert and trivial.
In Re Estates of Garcia 455 P.2d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
In Re Estates of Garcia 455 P.2d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Church v. *589 Arizona Corporation Commission, -111 , and when this is done, a statutory scheme for the payment of debts and expenses of administration becomes apparent.
Stevens v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1969
Stevens v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1969
is pertinent to the issue presented here.
Davis v. Industrial Commission 437 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1968
Davis v. Industrial Commission 437 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1968
which reaffirms the theory of when administrative remedies have been exhausted.
Campbell v. Chatwin 428 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1967
Campbell v. Chatwin 428 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1967
concerning the exhaustion of administrative remedies, “Under this doctrine, the commission must be given the opportunity to correct its errors before resort is had to provisions for judicial review.” 94 Ariz. at 110 , 382 P.2d at 224 .
Campbell v. Chatwin 421 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Campbell v. Chatwin 421 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
hereinafter referred to as Church.
Carson v. Gooding 419 P.2d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Carson v. Gooding 419 P.2d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Church v. Arizona Corporation Commission, 94 Ariz. *254 107 , to the end of giving a fair and sensible meaning to the statute.
State Ex Rel. Lassen v. Harpham 410 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State Ex Rel. Lassen v. Harpham 410 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Brown v. White 408 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965