Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 40

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-254

Action to set aside or modify certain orders of commission; filing; limitation; superior court

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Except as provided in section 40-254.01, any party in interest, or the attorney general on behalf of the state, being dissatisfied with an order or decision of the commission, may within thirty days after a rehearing is denied or granted, and not afterwards, commence an action in the superior court in the county in which the commission has its office, against the commission as defendant, to vacate, set aside, affirm in part, reverse in part or remand with instructions to the commission such order or decision on the ground that the valuation, rate, joint rate, toll, fare, charge or finding, rule, classification or schedule, practice, demand, requirement, act or service provided in the order or decision is unlawful, or that any rule, practice, act or service provided in the order is unreasonable. The answer of the commission shall be served and filed within twenty days after service of the complaint, whereupon the action shall be at issue and ready for trial upon ten days' notice to either party. The action shall be tried and determined as other civil actions except as provided in this section.

B. If the commission rescinds the order complained of, the action shall be dismissed, and if the commission alters, modifies or amends the order, the altered, modified or amended order shall replace the original order complained of, and judgment shall be given thereon as though made by the commission in the first instance.

C. The trial shall conform, as nearly as possible, and except as otherwise prescribed by this section, to other trials in civil actions. Judgment shall be given affirming, modifying or setting aside the original or amended order.

D. Either party to the action, or the attorney general on behalf of the state, within thirty days after the judgment of the superior court is given, may appeal to the supreme court.

E. In all trials, actions and proceedings the burden of proof shall be upon the party adverse to the commission or seeking to vacate or set aside any determination or order of the commission to show by clear and satisfactory evidence that it is unreasonable or unlawful.

F. Except as provided by this section no court of this state shall have jurisdiction to enjoin, restrain, suspend, delay or review any order or decision of the commission, or to enjoin, restrain or interfere with the commission in the performance of its official duties, and the rules, orders or decrees fixed by the commission shall remain in force pending the decision of the courts, but a writ of mandamus shall lie from the supreme court to the commission in cases authorized by law.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 90 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1956–2026 · leading case: Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc. (2004) arizctapp · cites it 17× “Relying on A.R.S. § 40-254, the Cooperatives counter that the court was not authorized to grant this relief.”
Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission (2007) arizctapp · cites it 10× “¶ 12 The line-siting statutes do not refer to “application for rehearing” or “rehearing,” but they specifically address judicial review, providing as follows: “Subject to the rights to judicial review recognized in §§ 40-254 and 40-360.07, no court in this state has jurisdiction…”
City of Show Low v. Owens (1980) arizctapp · cites it 27× “At issue is whether the limitation of review set forth in A.R.S. § 40-254 is one of venue or jurisdiction.”
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission (1982) ariz · cites it 10× “The company then appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-254. After conducting a two day trial, the Superior Court, on 4 March 1980, entered a judgment vacating and setting aside the Commission’s decision to deny a rate increase to Tucson Electric.”
Grand Canyon Trust v. Arizona Corp. Commission (2005) arizctapp · cites it 8× “V 7 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-254 the Trust filed an action in superior court to modify or set aside the Commission’s decision.”
Sun City Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission (1976) ariz · cites it 9× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-254, the Company filed an action in the Superior Court of Maricopa County for a de novo review of the Commission’s decision.”
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Citizens Utilities Co. (1978) arizctapp · cites it 6× “8 We have also reviewed the evidence upon which the trial court concluded that the Commission’s determinations as to the risks involved in the Company’s operation in Mohave County were not real, and find that the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusions.”
Sulger v. Arizona Corporation Commission (1967) arizctapp · cites it 12× “He thereafter filed his complaint in the Superior Court under A.R.S. § 40-254 to set aside the action of the Commission.”
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Reliable Transportation Co. (1959) ariz · cites it 8× “Appellees, in accordance with A.R.S. § 40-254, commenced the instant actions to vacate and set aside the orders of the Commission.”
Purolator Security, Inc. v. Thorneycroft (1977) ariz · cites it 12× “This evidence revealed that Purolator's operations included both an armored car service and a stationary guard service.”
Sierra Club—Grand Canyon Chapter v. Arizona Corp. Commission (2015) arizctapp · cites it 6× “§ 40-254(E), which provides that “[i]n all trials, actions and proceedings the burden *573 of proof shall be upon the party adverse to the [C]ommission or seeking to vacate or set aside any determination or order of the [C]ommission to show by clear and satisfactory evidence…”
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Fred Harvey Transportation Co. (1964) ariz · cites it 8× “By A.R.S. § 40-254, any party in interest may commence an action in the superior court to set aside an order or decision of the Commission on the ground that the order or decision is unlawful or unreasonable.”
Show all 90 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-254(0) — 1 case
Sun City Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission (1976) ariz “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-254, the Company filed an action in the Superior Court of Maricopa County for a de novo review of the Commission’s decision.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-254(A) — 22 cases
Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission (2007) arizctapp “¶ 12 The line-siting statutes do not refer to “application for rehearing” or “rehearing,” but they specifically address judicial review, providing as follows: “Subject to the rights to judicial review recognized in §§ 40-254 and 40-360.07, no court in this state has jurisdiction…”
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc. (2004) arizctapp “Relying on A.R.S. § 40-254, the Cooperatives counter that the court was not authorized to grant this relief.”
Grand Canyon Trust v. Arizona Corp. Commission (2005) arizctapp “V 7 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-254 the Trust filed an action in superior court to modify or set aside the Commission’s decision.”
General Cable Corp. v. Citizens Utilities Co. (1976) arizctapp
Purolator Security, Inc. v. Thorneycroft (1977) ariz “This evidence revealed that Purolator's operations included both an armored car service and a stationary guard service.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-254(A)(C) — 1 case
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission (1982) ariz “The company then appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-254. After conducting a two day trial, the Superior Court, on 4 March 1980, entered a judgment vacating and setting aside the Commission’s decision to deny a rate increase to Tucson Electric.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-254(B) — 1 case
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Superior Court (1974) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-254(C) — 3 cases
Grand Canyon Trust v. Arizona Corp. Commission (2005) arizctapp “V 7 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-254 the Trust filed an action in superior court to modify or set aside the Commission’s decision.”
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc. (2004) arizctapp “Relying on A.R.S. § 40-254, the Cooperatives counter that the court was not authorized to grant this relief.”
Sun City Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission (1976) ariz “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-254, the Company filed an action in the Superior Court of Maricopa County for a de novo review of the Commission’s decision.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-254(D) — 1 case
Metro Mobile CTS, Inc. v. Newvector Communications, Inc. (1987) azd
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-254(E) — 19 cases
Grand Canyon Trust v. Arizona Corp. Commission (2005) arizctapp “V 7 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-254 the Trust filed an action in superior court to modify or set aside the Commission’s decision.”
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission (1982) ariz “The company then appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-254. After conducting a two day trial, the Superior Court, on 4 March 1980, entered a judgment vacating and setting aside the Commission’s decision to deny a rate increase to Tucson Electric.”
Sun City Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission (1976) ariz “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-254, the Company filed an action in the Superior Court of Maricopa County for a de novo review of the Commission’s decision.”
Sierra Club—Grand Canyon Chapter v. Arizona Corp. Commission (2015) arizctapp “§ 40-254(E), which provides that “[i]n all trials, actions and proceedings the burden *573 of proof shall be upon the party adverse to the [C]ommission or seeking to vacate or set aside any determination or order of the [C]ommission to show by clear and satisfactory evidence…”
Shorey v. Arizona Corp. Commission (2015) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-254(F) — 11 cases
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Citizens Utilities Co. (1978) arizctapp “8 We have also reviewed the evidence upon which the trial court concluded that the Commission’s determinations as to the risks involved in the Company’s operation in Mohave County were not real, and find that the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusions.”
Sende Vista Water Co., Inc. v. City of Phoenix (1980) arizctapp
Johnson v. Acc (2019) arizctapp
City of Bisbee v. Arizona Water Co. (2007) arizctapp
Electrical District No. 2 v. Arizona Corp. Commission (1987) ariz
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.