Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 40
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-334 (2026)

Discrimination between persons, localities or classes of service as to rates, charges, service or facilities prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A public service corporation shall not, as to rates, charges, service, facilities or in any other respect, make or grant any preference or advantage to any person or subject any person to any prejudice or disadvantage.

B. No public service corporation shall establish or maintain any unreasonable difference as to rates, charges, service, facilities or in any other respect, either between localities or between classes of service.

C. The commission may determine any question of fact arising under this section.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2021 · leading case: Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc., 83 P.3d 573 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc., 83 P.3d 573 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 10× “Discrimination ¶ 92 The Cooperatives argue that the superior court erred by entering judgment against them on their claims that the decisions promulgating the Rules and issuing CC & Ns to the ESPs violate anti-discrimination provisions set forth in the Arizona Constitution and…”
Marco Crane & Rigging v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 746 P.2d 33 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 40-334 states: “A. A public service'corporation shall not, as to rates, charges, service, facilities or in any other respect, make or grant any preference or advantage to any person or subject any person to any prejudice or disadvantage.”
Freeport Minerals Corp. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 419 P.3d 942 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “XV, § 3, and A.R.S. § 40-334's prohibitions against "subject[ing] any person to any prejudice or disadvantage" as to rates, and "establish[ing] or maintain[ing] unreasonable difference[s] as to rates .”
Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 672 P.2d 495 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “15, § 12 of the Arizona Constitution, which prohibits discriminatory charges, and of A.R.S. § 40-334(A), which forbids a public service corporation from giving preferences.”
Sun City v. Acc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 18× “¶23 Because SCHOA has shown no error in the Commission’s finding that all customers are charged the same rate for the same services, SCHOA fails to prove the Commission set a discriminatory rate in violation of the Arizona Constitution or A.”
Grand Canyon Airlines, Inc. v. Arizona Aviation, Inc., 469 P.2d 486 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 40-334 (1956). “A. A public service corporation shall not, as to rates, charges, service, facilities or in any other respect, make or grant any preference or advantage to any person or subject any person to any prejudice or disadvantage.”
Carlin Commc'ns, Inc. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 827 F.2d 1291 (9th Cir. 1987). “2d 1046, 1054 (1959); see Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 40-334(A). 2 The district court held below that Mountain Bell’s decision to exclude “adult entertainment” companies from its 976 network violated this duty.”
Sun City Home Owners Ass'n v. Acc (Ariz. 2021). · cites it 4× “Also not before us is whether the Commission’s actions violate A.R.S. § 40-334(A) because Sun City did not raise the issue to the Commission and thus has waived it.”
Woodward v. Acc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “A public service corporation is impressed with the obligation of furnishing its service to each patron at the same price it makes to every other patron for the same or 6 The parties dispute whether the Commission can be found to have violated § 40-334 by approving discriminatory…”
Miller v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n, 463 P.2d 840 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). “The argument continues that because commercial and industrial users, irrigation pumping users, and lessees and tenants are excluded under the reimbursement plan, discrimination among users occurs which makes both the reimbursement plan and the 1928 amendment to the Articles of…”
Miller v. Salt River Valley Water Users'ass'n, 463 P.2d 840 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). “The argument continues that because commercial and industrial users, irrigation pumping users, and lessees and tenants are excluded under the reimbursement plan, discrimination among users occurs which makes both the reimbursement plan and the 1928 amendment to the Articles of…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-334(A) — 5 cases
Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 672 P.2d 495 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “15, § 12 of the Arizona Constitution, which prohibits discriminatory charges, and of A.R.S. § 40-334(A), which forbids a public service corporation from giving preferences.”
Carlin Commc'ns, Inc. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 827 F.2d 1291 (9th Cir. 1987). “2d 1046, 1054 (1959); see Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 40-334(A). 2 The district court held below that Mountain Bell’s decision to exclude “adult entertainment” companies from its 976 network violated this duty.”
Sun City v. Acc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “¶23 Because SCHOA has shown no error in the Commission’s finding that all customers are charged the same rate for the same services, SCHOA fails to prove the Commission set a discriminatory rate in violation of the Arizona Constitution or A.”
Sun City Home Owners Ass'n v. Acc (Ariz. 2021). “Also not before us is whether the Commission’s actions violate A.R.S. § 40-334(A) because Sun City did not raise the issue to the Commission and thus has waived it.”
Woodward v. Acc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “A public service corporation is impressed with the obligation of furnishing its service to each patron at the same price it makes to every other patron for the same or 6 The parties dispute whether the Commission can be found to have violated § 40-334 by approving discriminatory…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-334(B) — 1 case
Sun City Home Owners Ass'n v. Acc (Ariz. 2021). “Also not before us is whether the Commission’s actions violate A.R.S. § 40-334(A) because Sun City did not raise the issue to the Commission and thus has waived it.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-334(C) — 1 case
Woodward v. Acc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “A public service corporation is impressed with the obligation of furnishing its service to each patron at the same price it makes to every other patron for the same or 6 The parties dispute whether the Commission can be found to have violated § 40-334 by approving discriminatory…”
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.