Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite US West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission, 34 P.3d 351.

42 citing documents.

Hopi Tribe v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Hopi Tribe v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
We will not “render[] a judgment or opinion on a situation that may never occur.” U.S. W. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 15 (App. 2000), vacated on other grounds
Aps v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Aps v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
US W. Commc'ns, ¶ 12 (2001).
Sun City v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sun City v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
first determines the revenue requirement by “finding the ‘fair value’ of a utility’s in-state property, and then using that value as the ‘rate base’ in the following rate-of-return formula: (Rate Base x Rate of Return) + Expenses = Revenue Requirement.” RUCO v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 6 (2016) (citing Ariz. Const. art. 15, § 14, and US West Commc’ns, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 13 (2001)).
State v. Wein 395 P.3d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wein 395 P.3d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
US West Commc’ns, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 7
Simpson v. Miller ex rel. County of Maricopa 387 P.3d 1270 Ariz. 2017
Jason Donald simpson/joe Paul Martinez v. Hons. miller/steinle/state Ariz. 2017
Simpson v. Miller ex rel. County of Maricopa 387 P.3d 1270 Ariz. 2017
US West Commc’ns, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, , 244 ¶ 7
Jason Donald simpson/joe Paul Martinez v. Hons. miller/steinle/state Ariz. 2017
US West Commc’ns, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 7
White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County 386 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County 386 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“Statutes are presumed constitutional and the burden of proof is on the opponent of the statute to show it infringes upon a constitutional guarantee or violates a constitutional principle.” , see US W. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 23 , (stating that whenever possible, we construe Arizona law “to avoid conflict with the United States Constitution and federal statutes”).
Woodward v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Woodward v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See U.S. West Commc’ns, -15, ¶ 15 (App. 2000), vacated on other grounds, Arizona Downs v. Turf Paradise, Inc., -45 (App. 1984).
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corporation commission/arizona Water Company 377 P.3d 305 Ariz. 2016
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corporation commission/arizona Water Company 377 P.3d 305 Ariz. 2016
US West Commc’ns, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 13
Ruco v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corp. Commission 355 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corp. Commission 355 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The commission is charged with an affirmative duty to act.” US West Commc’ns, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 11 , (“US West”).
Ruco v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The commission is charged with an affirmative duty to act.” US West Commc'ns, ¶ 11, (“US West”).
Rader v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP 352 P.3d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Rader v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP 352 P.3d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
US W. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 7, see also Andrews ex rel.
Yamaha v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Yamaha v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Cf. US W. Commc'ns, ¶ 17, (although corporation commission must consider fair value of public service company’s property when setting rates, the weight to be afforded the fair value factor, relative to other information, is within commission’s broad discretion)
Hunt v. Richardson 163 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Hunt v. Richardson 163 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
1205 (1933)); U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, -15, ¶ 15 , -03 (App.2000) (holding court will not render judgment on situation that may never occur), vacated on other grounds, ¶ 27
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission 132 P.3d 1187 Ariz. 2006
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission 132 P.3d 1187 Ariz. 2006
See U.S. West Commc’ns, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 17
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 111 P.3d 1003 Ariz. 2005
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 111 P.3d 1003 Ariz. 2005
¶ 10 When a constitutional provision is unambiguous, it “is to be given its plain meaning and effect.” U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 10
Carl Seel v. Tim Sifert Ariz. 2004
Carl Seel v. Tim Sifert Ariz. 2004
“Unambiguous constitutional language, however, is to be given its plain meaning and effect.” US W. Communications, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 10
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
[7] ¶ 20 During the pendency of this appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court issued its decision in US West Communications, , (" US West II "), which substantially resolved the parties' arguments concerning these rulings.
Eaton v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 79 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Eaton v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 79 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
See U.S. W. Communications, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n
Nielson v. Patterson 65 P.3d 911 Ariz. 2003
Nielson v. Patterson 65 P.3d 911 Ariz. 2003
US West Communications, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 7
Qwest Corporation v. Mark McMahon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Qwest Corporation v. Mark McMahon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Cf. U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, P.3d 351 (2001) (finding questions relating to obligations of Commission mandated by constitution to be legal questions of statewide importance, warranting acceptance of special action jurisdiction); Arizona Corp. Comm’n v. State ex rel.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by