Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Visco v. State Ex Rel. Pickrell, 388 P.2d 155.

32 citing documents.

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
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
h at that time were regarded as common carriers and thus fell within our Constitution’s definition of “a public service corporation.” “In its modern form the power to grant monopolies is exercised through the granting [by the Corporation Commission] of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to the first, or favored applicant, and in denying a certificate to all others.”
Rural/Metro Corp. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 629 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Rural/Metro Corp. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 629 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
General Alarm, Inc. v. Underdown, supra.
Arizona Corporation Commission v. Nicholson 497 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1972
Arizona Corporation Commission v. Nicholson 497 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1972
Pickrell, , Williams v. State ex rel.
Boyes v. State 459 P.2d 86 Ariz. 1969
Boyes v. State 459 P.2d 86 Ariz. 1969
Boyes v. State 445 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Boyes v. State 445 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Continental Security Guards 443 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1968
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Continental Security Guards 443 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1968
Pickrell, , , we held that trash was not “property,” and that the carrier was not subject to the corporation commission’s control.
Williams v. Arizona Corp. Commission 430 P.2d 144 Ariz. 1967
Williams v. Arizona Corp. Commission 430 P.2d 144 Ariz. 1967
Pickrell, , , Williams v. State ex rel.
Visco v. First National Bank of Arizona 415 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Visco v. First National Bank of Arizona 415 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Appellees appealed Judge Garrett’s order on November 9,1960, (Supreme Court Cause No. 7227), but said appeal was eventually dismissed on February 5, 1965, by the Supreme Court, as being moot (ARIZONA SERVICE CO. vs VISCO, , 389 Pac.2d 122 [1964]), by reason of that Court’s prior decision on December 26, 1963, in VISCO vs STATE, , 388 Pac.2d 155 (1963).
Arizona Service Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 410 P.2d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Garbage Service Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 410 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Cochise Sanitary Services, Inc. v. Corporation Commission 410 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Cochise Sanitary Services, Inc. v. Corporation Commission 410 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
The facts as are necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows: , the Corporation Commission of Arizona ordered the appellant and others to appear and show cause why their “common carrier certificate of convenience and necessity or contract carrier permit, permitting and authorizing the transportation of the above-described property for compensation over publi
Arizona Service Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 410 P.2d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Pickrell, , and appellants appeal.
Garbage Service Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 410 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
We feel and therefore hold, , is controlling in the instant case.
Williams v. State Ex Rel. Smith 408 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Williams v. State Ex Rel. Smith 408 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Pickrell, , rehearing denied 1964.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Rhodes 397 P.2d 61 Ariz. 1964
Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Rhodes 397 P.2d 61 Ariz. 1964
Williams v. Corporation Commission 396 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1964
Williams v. Corporation Commission 396 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1964
Arizona Service Co. v. Visco 389 P.2d 122 Ariz. 1964
Arizona Service Co. v. Visco 389 P.2d 122 Ariz. 1964
Pickrell, , , decided December 26, 1963.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by