Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Corp. Commission v. State Ex Rel. Woods, 830 P.2d 807.

47 citing documents.

Aps v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Aps v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Burns v. Apsc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Burns v. Apsc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶17 “The framers established the Commission as a separate, popularly-elected branch of state government.” Ariz. Corp. Comm’n v. Woods, abrogated by Johnson Utilities, L.L.C. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n
Johnson Utilities LLC v. Arizona Corporation Ariz. 2020
Johnson Utilities LLC v. Arizona Corporation Ariz. 2020
Sun City v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sun City v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
City of Surprise v. acc/lake Pleasant 437 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2019
City of Surprise v. acc/lake Pleasant 437 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2019
Woods , , 288, , 809 (1992) (granting special action review because "this court can best serve the public interest and principles of judicial economy by resolving fundamental legal questions regarding the Commission's constitutional power at this time").
Johnson v. Acc 438 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Johnson v. Acc 438 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Woods, – 88 (1992).1 DISCUSSION ¶7 Johnson Utilities contends that only the superior court, and not the Commission, has authority to order that a third-party interim manager operate a public service corporation.
MacGruder v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
MacGruder v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
US Airways, Inc. v. Qwest Corp. 361 P.3d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
US Airways, Inc. v. Qwest Corp. 361 P.3d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Woods, -94, -15 (1992) (discussing ACC history ).
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
Woods, , (The Commission must use its “powers to regulate public service corporations in the public interest.”).
Ruco v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Woods, (The Commission must use its “powers to regulate public service corporations in the public interest.”).
Sierra Club—Grand Canyon Chapter v. Arizona Corp. Commission 354 P.3d 1127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sierra Club—Grand Canyon Chapter v. Arizona Corp. Commission 354 P.3d 1127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Woods, (recognizing that “[t]he [Arizona Constitution’s] framers established the Commission as a separate, popularly-elected branch of state government”).
Biggs v. cooper/brewer 323 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Biggs v. cooper/brewer 323 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
BNSF Railway Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 268 P.3d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
BNSF Railway Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 268 P.3d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Miller v. Arizona Corp. Commission 251 P.3d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Miller v. Arizona Corp. Commission 251 P.3d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc. 199 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc. 199 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Woods, , (quoting this formulation of the per se inquiry from Brownr-Forman).
Arizona-American Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 98 P.3d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Arizona-American Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 98 P.3d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Woods, , the Attorney General refused to certify the Affiliated Interests Rules pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act on the grounds that the Commission did not have the power to adopt the rules.
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
Woods, , ("The founders expected the Commission to provide both effective regulation of public service corporations and consumer protection against overreaching by those corporations."); State v. Tucson Gas, Elec.
Qwest Corporation v. Mark McMahon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Qwest Corporation v. Mark McMahon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Woods, P.2d 807 (1992) (propriety of attorney general’s refusal to certify rules proposed by Commission and issue regarding Commission’s constitutional power to regulate transactions between public service corporations and their affiliates regarded as urgent, 3 purely
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
Woods, , (stating that the Commission had regulatory power permitting it to require information regarding, and power of approval over, utilities' transactions with affiliates because such transactions could damage the utilities' assets leading to a request for higher rates).
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Block 942 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1997
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Block 942 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1997
Woods, -88 , -09 (1992); see also University of Arizona Health Sciences Ctr.
U S West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 915 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
U S West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 915 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Woods, , Lee R. Russ, Annot., Amount Paid by Public Utility to Affiliate for Goods and Services as Includable in Utility’s Rate Base and Operating Expenses in Rate Proceeding, 16 A.L.R.4th 454 (1982).
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
Woods, , Arizona Corp. Comm’n v. Superior Ct., , see generally Deborah Scott Engelby, Comment, The Corporation Commission: Preserving Its Independence, 20 Ariz.St.L.J.
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commission 848 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commission 848 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
where the court held that the proposed rules were within the ratemaking powers of the commission and ordered the attorney general to certify them.