A. All hearings and investigations before the commission or a commissioner shall be governed by this article, and by rules of practice and procedure adopted by the commission. Neither the commission nor a commissioner shall be bound by technical rules of evidence, and no informality in any proceeding or in the manner of taking testimony before the commission or a commissioner shall invalidate any order, decision, rule or regulation made, approved or confirmed by the commission.
B. In a hearing or rehearing conducted pursuant to this article, a public service corporation may be represented by a corporate officer or employee who is not a member of the state bar if:
1. The corporation has specifically authorized the officer or employee to represent it.
2. The representation is not the officer's or employee's primary duty for the corporation but is secondary or incidental to such officer's or employee's duties relating to the management or operation of the corporation.
C. The commission may adopt or administer arbitration procedures to resolve complaints or disputes brought by a party against a telecommunications company, except that the commission shall not subject a wireless provider to arbitration unless the wireless provider and customer consent in writing. This section does not prohibit the commission from arbitrating disputes or complaints against a wireline service provider, involving telecommunications services contained in the bundle of services, to the extent the commission has jurisdiction as authorized pursuant to this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Jenney v. Arizona Express, Inc., 362 P.2d 664 (Ariz. 1961).
· cites it 2× “” We agree with appellant that the effective date of an order of the commission granting or denying a certificate of convenience and necessity is twenty days after that order is entered. While the effective date is nowhere clearly set out we think that in this case the uniform…”
Arizona-Am. Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 98 P.3d 624 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“The single category of order that may be appealed directly to the court of appeals is “any order of the commission involving public service corporations and relating to rate making or rate design pursuant to §§ 40-243, 40-246, 40-250 and 40-251.” A.”
Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 939 P.2d 1345 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
“or any party to a proceeding before the commission who is dissatisfied with any order of the commission involving public service corporations and relating to rate making or rate design pursuant to §§ 40-243, 40-246, 40-250 and 40-251 may file within thirty days after a rehearing…”
Robert Burns v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co (Ariz. 2022).
· cites it 4× “¶19 Beyond these constitutional provisions, the Commission and APS cite A.R.S. § 40-243(A), which provides that “[a]ll hearings and investigations before the commission or a commissioner shall be governed by this article, and by rules of practice and procedure adopted by the…”
Robert Burns v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co (Ariz. 2022).
· cites it 4× “¶19 Beyond these constitutional provisions, the Commission and APS cite A.R.S. § 40-243(A), which provides that “[a]ll hearings and investigations before the commission or a commissioner shall be governed by this article, and by rules of practice and procedure adopted by the…”
Woodward v. Acc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 40-243; see A.A.C. R14-3-101 to -13.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-243(A) — 2 cases
Robert Burns v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co (Ariz. 2022).
“¶19 Beyond these constitutional provisions, the Commission and APS cite A.R.S. § 40-243(A), which provides that “[a]ll hearings and investigations before the commission or a commissioner shall be governed by this article, and by rules of practice and procedure adopted by the…”
Robert Burns v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co (Ariz. 2022).
“¶19 Beyond these constitutional provisions, the Commission and APS cite A.R.S. § 40-243(A), which provides that “[a]ll hearings and investigations before the commission or a commissioner shall be governed by this article, and by rules of practice and procedure adopted by the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.