Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission, 773 P.2d 455.

72 citing documents.

State v. Campo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, & n.12 (1989) (citing Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927)).
CENTER FOR AZ v. AZ SECRETARY OF STATE Ariz. 2026
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, (explaining this is necessarily so because the people adopted the Constitution before the U.S. Supreme Court applied the federal Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, to the states).
State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2019
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2019
& Tel, Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, (“[W]e apply here the broader freedom of speech clause of the Arizona Constitution.”).
John Doe v. Mahoney 418 P.3d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
John Doe v. Mahoney 418 P.3d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n , , 354-55, , 459-60 (1989) ; Sign Here Petitions LLC v. Chavez , , 104, ¶ 10, , 462 (App. 2017).
Sign Here v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sign Here v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n
Bozrah v. aroc/peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Bozrah v. aroc/peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, (“fundamental and long-standing principle of judicial restraint requires that courts avoid reaching constitutional questions in advance of the necessity of deciding them” (quoting Lyng v. Nw.
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
City of Scottsdale v. State 352 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
City of Scottsdale v. State 352 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, , (noting that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides only a protection against government action that restricts speech and does not prevent a state from granting to its citizens greater protections than are required under the federal constitution).
COMMITTEE FOR JUSTICE & FAIRNESS v. Arizona Secretary of State's Office 332 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
COMMITTEE FOR JUSTICE & FAIRNESS v. Arizona Secretary of State's Office 332 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ), CJF provides no argument that our analysis of the issues presented here under the Arizona Constitution should differ from that used by courts under the United States Constitution.
Coleman v. City of Mesa 265 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Coleman v. City of Mesa 265 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, -55 , -60 (1989), neither party contends the state provision defines protected speech differently than the First Amendment.
State v. Stummer 194 P.3d 1043 Ariz. 2008
State v. Stummer 194 P.3d 1043 Ariz. 2008
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, -55, -60 (1989).
Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe 170 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Stummer 171 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe 170 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, -55 , 357 n. 13, -60 , 462 n. 13 (1989) (recognizing Arizona Constitution directly provides broad free speech rights).
State v. Stummer 171 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, -55 , -60 (1989).
Salib v. City of Mesa 133 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Salib v. City of Mesa 133 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 98 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 98 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, , we reverse the order here.
Grammatico v. Industrial Commission 90 P.3d 211 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
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc. 83 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
no party suggests that we apply a different test to decide whether the Cooperatives' rights to free commercial speech are impinged under the state constitution.
Eastern Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 79 P.3d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Eastern Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 79 P.3d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Co. v. Corp. Comm’n, -61 , -66 (1989), the Fee Cross-Appellants urge that the superior court was required to award them the fees and expenses incurred during both the trial and administrative proceedings.
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Gravano 60 P.3d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Gravano 60 P.3d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n
State v. Evenson 33 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Evenson 33 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n
Arizona Libertarian Party v. Schmeral 28 P.3d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Arizona Libertarian Party v. Schmeral 28 P.3d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, , , if the context and purpose of the legislation indicate that the term should be so construed.
Eller Media Co. v. City of Tucson 7 P.3d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Eller Media Co. v. City of Tucson 7 P.3d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, , 773 P.2d.455 (1989) (under intermediate scrutiny test, content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on speech must be narrowly tailored to achieve goal sought), 2 and Kenyon (under strict scrutiny test, state must select least restrictive means necessary to achieve goal sought).
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, -55 , -60 (1989); Phoenix Newspapers
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
State v. Musser 954 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Musser 954 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, -55, -60 (1989).
Renalwest L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 943 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997