A. A public service corporation shall not sell, lease, assign, mortgage or otherwise dispose of or encumber the whole or any part of its railroad, line, plant or system necessary or useful in the performance of its duties to the public, or any franchise or permit or any right thereunder, nor shall such corporation merge such system or any part thereof with any other public service corporation without first having secured from the commission an order authorizing it so to do. Every such disposition, encumbrance or merger made other than in accordance with the order of the commission authorizing it is void.
B. The approval or permit of the commission under this section shall not revive or validate any lapsed or invalid franchise or permit, or enlarge or add to the powers or privileges contained in the grant of any franchise or permit, or waive any forfeiture.
C. This section does not prevent the sale, lease or other disposition by any such corporation of property that is not necessary or useful in the performance of its duties to the public, and any sale of its property by such corporation shall be conclusively presumed to have been of property that is not useful or necessary in the performance of its duties to the public as to any purchaser of the property in good faith for value.
D. A public service corporation shall not purchase, acquire, take or hold any part of the capital stock of any other public service corporation organized or existing under the laws of this state without a permit from the commission.
E. Every assignment, transfer, contract or agreement for assignment or transfer of any stock in violation of the provisions of this section is void, and the transfer shall not be made on the books of any public service corporation.
F. This section does not apply to a telecommunications corporation whose retail telecommunications services are all classified as competitive by the commission, except as may otherwise be determined by a commission order after the effective date of this amendment to this section.
Notes of Decisions
City of Surprise v. acc/lake Pleasant, 437 P.3d 865 (Ariz. 2019).
· cites it 74× “[b]efore [the seller-utility] can become a party to a valid agreement it must secure permission of the Corporation Commission under A.R.S. § 40-285.” Op. Ariz. Att’y Gen. 62-7, supra, at 11–12.”
Babe Inv. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 939 P.2d 425 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 25× “From the language in the order that the removal of the siding did “not constitute a violation of A.R.S. § 40-285,” we infer that the Commission found the siding was not necessary or useful.”
Am. Cable Television, Inc. v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 693 P.2d 928 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 15× “On August 12, 1981, the Commission filed a new certification relying on state statutes, especially A.R.S. §§ 40-285 and 40-361. Since the Pole Attachment Act does not permit the FCC to question the validity of the state agency’s assertion of authority, the FCC thereupon ceased…”
U S West Commc'ns, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 915 P.2d 1232 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “The Commission objected and, in October 1987, declared the transfer of directory publishing assets void because of Mountain Bell’s failure to comply with A.R.S. § 40-285. 3 Mountain Bell filed an action in superior court challenging this decision; the Commission and Mountain…”
Dail v. City of Phoenix, 624 P.2d 877 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 4× “He argued that this violated A.R.S. § 40-285 and made the contract between Presley and the City void under A.”
Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 717 P.2d 918 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 19× “§ 40-285(A)? In that case it was argued that since all parts of a utility pole are “necessary or useful” in the utility’s performance of its duties to the public, the rental of such “necessary or useful” property must be authorized by the Commission pursuant to A.”
Pueblo Del Sol Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 772 P.2d 1138 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “In July 1986 two public service corporations, Pueblo Del Sol Water Company *286 (PDS) and Arizona Water Company (AWC), sought Commission approval pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-285 of their joint application to transfer substantially all assets of PDS, including the Certificate of…”
Ariz. Pub. Serv. v. Mount. States Tel. & Tel., 717 P.2d 918 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 21× “§ 40-285(A)? In that case it was argued that since all parts of a utility pole are "necessary or useful" in the utility's performance of its duties to the public, the rental of such "necessary or useful" property must be authorized by the Commission pursuant to A.”
Mills v. Abotr (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “206 , 210 ¶¶ 9, 11–12 (2019) (in special action proceeding, concluding A.R.S. § 40-285(A) did not give the Arizona Corporation Commission power over City’s exercise of eminent domain, meaning the Commission acted without jurisdiction to enter an order, meaning the order issued…”
3 Sl v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “206 , 211 ¶ 14 (2019) (employing noscitur a sociis to construe “otherwise dispose of” limitedly, and thus consistent with “sell,” “lease”, “assign”, and “mortgage,” other actions listed in A.R.S. § 40-285(A)). In JH2K I, 246 Ariz.”
3 Sl v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “206 , 211 ¶ 14 (2019) (employing noscitur a sociis to construe “otherwise dispose of” limitedly, and thus consistent with “sell,” “lease,” “assign,” and “mortgage,” other actions listed in A.R.S. § 40-285(A)). In JH2K I, 246 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-285(A) — 9 cases
City of Surprise v. acc/lake Pleasant, 437 P.3d 865 (Ariz. 2019).
“[b]efore [the seller-utility] can become a party to a valid agreement it must secure permission of the Corporation Commission under A.R.S. § 40-285.” Op. Ariz. Att’y Gen. 62-7, supra, at 11–12.”
Babe Inv. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 939 P.2d 425 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
“From the language in the order that the removal of the siding did “not constitute a violation of A.R.S. § 40-285,” we infer that the Commission found the siding was not necessary or useful.”
Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 717 P.2d 918 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“§ 40-285(A)? In that case it was argued that since all parts of a utility pole are “necessary or useful” in the utility’s performance of its duties to the public, the rental of such “necessary or useful” property must be authorized by the Commission pursuant to A.”
U S West Commc'ns, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 915 P.2d 1232 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
“The Commission objected and, in October 1987, declared the transfer of directory publishing assets void because of Mountain Bell’s failure to comply with A.R.S. § 40-285. 3 Mountain Bell filed an action in superior court challenging this decision; the Commission and Mountain…”
Am. Cable Television, Inc. v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 693 P.2d 928 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
“On August 12, 1981, the Commission filed a new certification relying on state statutes, especially A.R.S. §§ 40-285 and 40-361. Since the Pole Attachment Act does not permit the FCC to question the validity of the state agency’s assertion of authority, the FCC thereupon ceased…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-285(C) — 1 case
Babe Inv. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 939 P.2d 425 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
“From the language in the order that the removal of the siding did “not constitute a violation of A.R.S. § 40-285,” we infer that the Commission found the siding was not necessary or useful.”
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.