A. No public highway or street shall be constructed across the track of any railroad at grade, nor shall the track of any railroad corporation be constructed across the track of any other railroad at grade, without the permission of the commission, but this provision shall not apply to the replacement of lawfully existing tracks. The commission may refuse permission or grant it upon such terms and conditions as it prescribes.
B. The commission shall have the exclusive power:
1. To determine and prescribe the manner, including the particular point of crossing, and the terms of installation, operation, maintenance, use and protection of each of the crossings.
2. To alter or abolish crossings.
3. To prescribe the terms upon which and the proportions in which the expense of the alteration or abolition of the crossing shall be divided between the parties affected or in interest.
C. When the commission finds that public convenience and necessity demands establishment, creation or construction of a crossing of a street or highway over, under or upon the tracks or lines of any public service corporation, the commission may by order require the establishment, construction or creation of the crossing, and the crossing shall thereupon become a public crossing. The commission shall have the exclusive power to prescribe the character of crossings to be constructed and maintained by railroads where their lines cross public roads or streets of a town or city.
Notes of Decisions
Pleak v. Entrada Prop. Owners' Ass'n, 73 P.3d 602 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “¶ 13 In Burlington, pursuant to its statutory authority to determine whether crossings at “public roads or streets” are necessary, A.R.S. § 40-337(C), the Arizona Corporation Commission had ordered the plaintiff railway company to maintain a road crossing it had intended to…”
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 268 P.3d 1138 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 6× “IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the City's application shall be considered an application for BNSF to upgrade existing crossings pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 40-337 et seq. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BNSF shall be considered as the Respondent in this proceeding.”
Isbell v. State, 9 P.3d 322 (Ariz. 2000).
· cites it 3× “Instead, the Commission prepared the order in this case under the authority of A.R.S. §§ 40-337 and 40-337.01, Arizona’s own statutory scheme for regulating railroads.”
Ames v. State, 694 P.2d 836 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “The Commission was notified because of its statutory responsibility, delineated in A.R.S. § 40-337, to approve and prescribe the character of railroad crossings over public highways.”
S. Pac. Co. v. Corp. Comm'n, 329 P.2d 883 (Ariz. 1958).
· cites it 4× “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…”
S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Yarnell, 863 P.2d 271 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 40-337 to 337.03. The parties in this special action do not disagree that the information sought was related to a federal safety program.”
Cnty. of Pima v. S. Pac. Co., 386 P.2d 400 (Ariz. 1963).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 40-337 provides, in part: “A. No public highway or street shall be constructed across the track of any railroad at grade, nor shall the track of any railroad corporation be constructed across the track of any other *43 railroad at grade, without the permission of the…”
Herrera v. W. Express Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00803 (D. Ariz. May 25, 2021).
· cites it 2× “3d 1208 , 1212 11 (interpreting A.R.S. § 40-337 to determine whether municipality could establish a road as 12 a public crossing where the road intersected with railroad tracks); Cardon, 544 P.”
Pleak v. Entrada, No. 2 CA-CV 2001-0100 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 25, 2003).
· cites it 2× “¶13 In Burlington, pursuant to its statutory authority to determine whether crossings at “public roads or streets” are necessary, A.R.S. § 40-337(C), the Arizona Corporation Commission had ordered the plaintiff railway company to maintain a road crossing it had intended to close.”
Gonzalez v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz, 878 P.2d 665 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “They argue, however, that the county voluntarily assumed the duty once it installed the warning sign at the east crossing approach and that regulations promulgated by the Arizona Corporation Commission pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-337 became applicable. Specifically they cite Ariz.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-337(A): 1 case
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 268 P.3d 1138 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the City's application shall be considered an application for BNSF to upgrade existing crossings pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 40-337 et seq. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BNSF shall be considered as the Respondent in this proceeding.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-337(B)(1): 1 case
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-337(B)(l): 1 case
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 268 P.3d 1138 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the City's application shall be considered an application for BNSF to upgrade existing crossings pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 40-337 et seq. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BNSF shall be considered as the Respondent in this proceeding.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-337(C): 2 cases
Pleak v. Entrada Prop. Owners' Ass'n, 73 P.3d 602 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“¶ 13 In Burlington, pursuant to its statutory authority to determine whether crossings at “public roads or streets” are necessary, A.R.S. § 40-337(C), the Arizona Corporation Commission had ordered the plaintiff railway company to maintain a road crossing it had intended to…”
Pleak v. Entrada, No. 2 CA-CV 2001-0100 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 25, 2003).
“¶13 In Burlington, pursuant to its statutory authority to determine whether crossings at “public roads or streets” are necessary, A.R.S. § 40-337(C), the Arizona Corporation Commission had ordered the plaintiff railway company to maintain a road crossing it had intended to close.”
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.