Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Williams v. Pipe Trades Industry Program of Arizona, 409 P.2d 720.

28 citing documents.

State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2020
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2020
Program of Ariz., (applying ejusdem generis canon to a constitutional provision and concluding that “[t]he phrase ‘other public purposes’ must, accordingly, have been intended to restrict the purpose in some manner similar to those enumerated”).
Southwest Transmission Cooperative, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 142 P.3d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Southwest Transmission Cooperative, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 142 P.3d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
¶ 19 The meaning of “furnish” in Article 15, Section 2
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
Program, , but instead exclusively derives its power from the constitution and the legislature.
Jennings v. Woods 982 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1999
US West Communications v. Arizona Corp. Com'n 3 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
US West Communications v. Arizona Corp. Com'n 3 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Tonto Creek Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission 864 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Tonto Creek Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission 864 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Program of Ariz., , Corporation Comm’n v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, -77
Consolidated Water Utilities, Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 875 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Consolidated Water Utilities, Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 875 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Rural/Metro Corp. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 629 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1981
Rural/Metro Corp. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 629 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1981
Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona Corporation Commission, supra.
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
§ 40-281 A; , , 201 P. 847 (1921).
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Town of Paradise Valley 610 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1980
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Town of Paradise Valley 610 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1980
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Town of Paradise Valley 610 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Robinson 503 P.2d 817 Ariz. 1972
State v. Robinson 503 P.2d 817 Ariz. 1972
Also, that furnishing “connotes a transfer of possession.”
Arizona Corporation Commission v. Nicholson 497 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1972
Arizona Corporation Commission v. Nicholson 497 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1972
Arizona Corporation Commission v. Superior Court 459 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1969
Arizona Corporation Commission v. Superior Court 459 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1969
lative-authority, the paramount power to make-all rules and regulations governing public-service corporations not specifically and’ expressly given to the commission by some provision of the constitution, rests-in the legislature, and it may, therefore, either exercise such powers directly or delegate them to the commission * * *59 We stated, , : “The Constitution does not authorize the Commission to issue public certificates of convenience and necessity, but by Article 15, § 6 of the Constituti
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
This is consistent with the proposition from which there seems to be no dissent that a public service commission has no inherent power.” Williams v. Pipe Trades Industry, Ariz., , filed 13 January, 1966.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by