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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-336 (2026)

Power of commission to require safety devices

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

The commission may by order, rule or regulation, require every public service corporation to maintain and operate its line, plant, system, equipment, and premises in a manner which will promote and safeguard the health and safety of its employees, passengers, customers and the public, and may prescribe the installation, use, maintenance and operation of appropriate safety or other devices or appliances, including interlocking and other protective devices at grade crossings or junctions and block or other systems of signalling, establish uniform or other standards of equipment, and require the performance of any other act which health or safety requires.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1958–2012 · leading case: James P. Paul Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 671 P.2d 404 (Ariz. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
James P. Paul Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 671 P.2d 404 (Ariz. 1983). · cites it 2× “Once certified to supply *430 water to a parcel of land, a water company must comply with orders and regulations promulgated by the Commission in the public interest, see A.R.S.”
S. Pac. Co. v. Corp. Comm'n, 329 P.2d 883 (Ariz. 1958). · cites it 6× “In its appeal to this court Southern Pa'cific contends that the trial court erred in affirming the Commission’s order because: (1) the South Cherry Avenue crossing does not create a hazardous condition dangerous to the health and safety of the public; (2) the hazard, if any, at…”
James P. Paul Water Co. v. ARIZ. CORP. COM'N, 671 P.2d 404 (Ariz. 1983). · cites it 2× “Once certified to supply *429 water to a parcel of land, a water company must comply with orders and regulations promulgated by the Commission in the public interest, see A.R.”
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 268 P.3d 1138 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to its authority under A.R.S. §§ 40-336 and - 337, the Commission held an evidentiary hearing and eventually approved the City’s application.”
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.