A. After any final order or decision is made by the commission, any party to the action or proceeding or the attorney general on behalf of the state may apply for a rehearing of any matter determined in the action or proceeding and specified in the application for rehearing within twenty days of entry of the order or decision. Unless otherwise ordered, the filing of such an application does not stay the decision or order of the commission. If the commission does not grant the application within twenty days, it is deemed denied. If the commission grants the application, the commission shall promptly hear the matter and determine it within twenty days after final submission.
B. No claim arising from any order or decision of the commission shall accrue in any court to any party or the state unless the party or the state makes, before the effective date of the order or decision, application to the commission for a rehearing.
C. The application shall set forth specifically the grounds on which it is based, and no person, nor the state, shall in any court urge or rely on any ground not set forth in the application.
D. An application for rehearing shall not excuse any person from complying with and obeying any order or decision, or any requirements of any order or decision of the commission theretofore made, or operate in any manner to stay or postpone the enforcement thereof, except in such cases and upon such terms as the commission by order directs.
E. If, after a rehearing and a consideration of all the facts, including those arising since the making of the order or decision, the commission finds that the original order or decision or any part thereof is in any respect unjust or unwarranted, or should be changed, the commission may abrogate, change, or modify the order or decision, and such order or decision has the same force and effect as an original order or decision, but shall not affect any right or the enforcement of any right arising from or by virtue of the original order or decision, unless so ordered by the commission.
Notes of Decisions
Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 165 P.3d 194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 40× “The Commission moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that SOVA failed to file an application for rehearing within twenty days of the entry of the Commission’s decision pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-253. SOVA countered that the filing of its request for reconsideration pursuant…”
Scates v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 578 P.2d 612 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 8× “Appellees rely upon A.R.S. § 40-253(C) which provides that parties may not rely in court upon the grounds not set forth in an application for rehearing before the Commission.”
Jenney v. Arizona Express, Inc., 362 P.2d 664 (Ariz. 1961).
· cites it 7× “A.R.S. § 40-253, subd. B provides: “No claim arising from any order or decision of the commission shall accrue in any court to any corporation or person, or the state, unless the corporation or person, or the state, makes, before the effective date of the order or decision,…”
Tucson Elec. Power Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 645 P.2d 231 (Ariz. 1982).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 40-253(A). We hold then that while the introduction of new evidence that was available at the time of the Commission hearing but otherwise not considered is admissible, evidence of circumstances or events that arise subsequent to proceedings before the Arizona…”
Campbell v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 586 P.2d 987 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “Once such jurisdiction exists, the exhaustion of remedies doctrine is used to determine whether or not the parties must completely exhaust the available administrative processes before seeking the aid of a court.”
Grand Canyon Trust v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 107 P.3d 356 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “These factors contain sufficient breadth to allow the Siting Committee to consider the need for power as a factor in considering a CEC application should it choose to do so.”
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc., 83 P.3d 573 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. §§ 40-253(A), -254(A) (2001). [5] Article 15, Section 3 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The Corporation Commission shall have full power to, and shall, prescribe just and reasonable classifications to be used and just and reasonable rates and charges to be made…”
Arizona State Land Dep't v. McFate, 348 P.2d 912 (Ariz. 1960).
· cites it 2× “Thus, under A.R.S. §§ 40-253 and 40-254, “the attorney general on behalf of the state” may apply to the Corporation Commission for a rehearing of any matter upon which the Commission has made an order or decision and, if he is “dissatisfied” with such order or decision, he may…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-253(A) — 19 cases
Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 165 P.3d 194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“The Commission moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that SOVA failed to file an application for rehearing within twenty days of the entry of the Commission’s decision pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-253. SOVA countered that the filing of its request for reconsideration pursuant…”
Tucson Elec. Power Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 645 P.2d 231 (Ariz. 1982).
“A.R.S. § 40-253(A). We hold then that while the introduction of new evidence that was available at the time of the Commission hearing but otherwise not considered is admissible, evidence of circumstances or events that arise subsequent to proceedings before the Arizona…”
Campbell v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 586 P.2d 987 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
“Once such jurisdiction exists, the exhaustion of remedies doctrine is used to determine whether or not the parties must completely exhaust the available administrative processes before seeking the aid of a court.”
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc., 83 P.3d 573 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“A.R.S. §§ 40-253(A), -254(A) (2001). [5] Article 15, Section 3 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The Corporation Commission shall have full power to, and shall, prescribe just and reasonable classifications to be used and just and reasonable rates and charges to be made…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-253(B) — 5 cases
Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 165 P.3d 194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“The Commission moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that SOVA failed to file an application for rehearing within twenty days of the entry of the Commission’s decision pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-253. SOVA countered that the filing of its request for reconsideration pursuant…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-253(C) — 4 cases
Scates v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 578 P.2d 612 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
“Appellees rely upon A.R.S. § 40-253(C) which provides that parties may not rely in court upon the grounds not set forth in an application for rehearing before the Commission.”
Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 165 P.3d 194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“The Commission moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that SOVA failed to file an application for rehearing within twenty days of the entry of the Commission’s decision pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-253. SOVA countered that the filing of its request for reconsideration pursuant…”
Grand Canyon Trust v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 107 P.3d 356 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“These factors contain sufficient breadth to allow the Siting Committee to consider the need for power as a factor in considering a CEC application should it choose to do so.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-253(D) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-253(a) — 1 case
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.