A. When the commission is of the opinion that a public service corporation is failing or about to fail to do anything required of it by law or an order or requirement of the commission, or is doing or about to do or permitting or about to permit anything to be done contrary to law or any order or requirement of the commission, it shall commence a proceeding in the name of the state to have such violations or threatened violations prevented, either by mandamus or injunction. The commission shall bring the action in the superior court in the county in which the claim arose, or in which the corporation complained of has its principal place of business or an agent for any purpose, or in which the commission has its office.
B. The court shall specify a time, not exceeding twenty days after service of the copy of the complaint, within which the corporation complained of shall answer the complaint, and in the meantime the corporation may be restrained. Upon default of answer, or after answer, the court shall immediately try the action.
C. Such persons as the court deems necessary or proper to be joined as parties, in order to make the judgment, order or writ effective, may be joined as parties.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1963–2020 · leading case:
Johnson v. Acc, 438 P.3d 656 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
Johnson v. Acc, 438 P.3d 656 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 5× “A.R.S. § 40-422 DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE COMMISSION FROM ISSUING AN ORDER IMPOSING AN INTERIM MANAGER.”
S. Pac. Co. v. Arizona Corp. Com'n, 404 P.2d 692 (Ariz. 1965).
· cites it 4× “Subsequently petitioner's motion for rehearing was denied. We granted certiorari pursuant to A.R.S.”
Visco v. State Ex Rel. Pickrell, 388 P.2d 155 (Ariz. 1963).
· cites it 3× “First, was the action properly brought by the Attorney General? The Attorney General is acting under A.R.S. § 40-422 which provides in part: “When the commission is of the opinion that a public service corporation is failing or about to fail to do anything required of it by law…”
Williams v. State Ex Rel. Smith, 408 P.2d 224 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965).
· cites it 2× “The Attorney General, pursuant to Section 40-422 A.R.S., filed a complaint in October, 1963, praying for an injunction against the defendants stating that the defendants had, contrary to the statutes of Arizona and in violation of the regulations of the Corporation Commission of…”
Johnson Utils. LLC v. Arizona Corp. (Ariz. 2020).
· cites it 5× “Opinion of the Court ¶70 Finally, we are not persuaded by Johnson’s claim that pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-422(A), the superior court has the sole authority to issue an order appointing an interim manager.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-422(A) — 2 cases
Johnson v. Acc, 438 P.3d 656 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“A.R.S. § 40-422 DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE COMMISSION FROM ISSUING AN ORDER IMPOSING AN INTERIM MANAGER.”
Johnson Utils. LLC v. Arizona Corp. (Ariz. 2020).
“Opinion of the Court ¶70 Finally, we are not persuaded by Johnson’s claim that pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-422(A), the superior court has the sole authority to issue an order appointing an interim manager.”
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.