A. It is declared as the public policy of the state that when adequate public utility service under authority of law is being rendered in an area, within or without the boundaries of a city or town, a competing service and installation shall not be authorized, instituted, made or carried on by a city or town unless or until that portion of the plant, system and business of the utility used and useful in rendering such service in the area in which the city or town seeks to serve, has been acquired.
B. The city or town which seeks to acquire the facilities of a public service corporation shall have the right to do so under eminent domain. Such action shall be brought and prosecuted in the same manner as other civil actions.
C. A city or town acquiring the facilities of a public service corporation rendering utility service without the boundaries of such city or town, or which renders utility service without its boundaries, shall not discontinue such service, once established, as long as such city or town owns or controls such utility. A city or town which renders utility service outside of its boundaries as prescribed by this subsection shall not be prohibited from selling a part of its utility operation to another utility which operates under regulations prescribed by law.
D. It is declared the public policy of the state that when a city or town has purchased the property or plant of a public utility serving in an area within or without the boundaries of the city or town pursuant to this article, the corporation commission shall not be authorized or empowered to grant a new certificate of convenience and necessity or franchise to any person, firm or corporation to provide the same kind of public utility service within the area or territory previously authorized to said public utility under its certificate of convenience and necessity or franchise, but if the city or town refuses to provide utility service to a portion or part of the area or territory previously authorized to the public utility, the corporation commission may issue a new certificate of convenience and necessity or franchise to a public utility to provide utility service in that portion or part of the area or territory.
Notes of Decisions
City of Surprise v. acc/lake Pleasant, 437 P.3d 865 (Ariz. 2019).
· cites it 14× “§ 9-516, nothing in the eminent domain statutes expressly divests the Commission of authority to investigate the nature of the transaction or to protect the public’s access to water before the acquisition. The majority correctly states that the Commission has no jurisdiction…”
Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City of Kingman, 922 P.2d 308 (Ariz. 1996).
· cites it 34× “Indeed, we note that the legislature may have specifically considered garbage collectors as eligible beneficiaries of § 9-516. Speaking in opposition to the proposed law, Senator Miller said: "I want to point out that, while all of the talk on this Bill has centered around…”
Town of Marana v. Pima Cnty., 281 P.3d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 20× “Finally, in a footnote, the County also claimed that, as set forth in A.R.S. § 9-516 (2008), the *146 Town may not compete with the County’s existing utility service.”
Jung v. City of Phoenix, 770 P.2d 342 (Ariz. 1989).
· cites it 32× “A city or town acquiring the facilities of a public service corporation rendering utility service without the boundaries of such city or town, or which renders utility service without its boundaries, shall not discontinue such service, once established, as long as such city or…”
City of Mesa v. Salt River Proj. Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 373 P.2d 722 (Ariz. 1962).
· cites it 14× “It is declared as the public policy of the state that when adequate public utility service under authority of law is being rendered in an area, within or without the boundaries of a city or town, a competing service and installation shall not be authorized, instituted, made or…”
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage Dist. v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 64 P.3d 836 (Ariz. 2003).
· cites it 5× “§ 9-516 ¶28 Finally, we do not agree that A.R.S. § 9-516 (1996) requires Hohokam first to acquire APS’s property and plants before extending electrical service to areas covered by the APS certificate of public convenience and necessity.”
Moore v. City of Page, 713 P.2d 813 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 9-516. The legislature may have enacted Article 3 and allowed improvements to be financed at a higher interest rate in order to assure continued adequate operation of a utility.”
Davis v. Brittain, 373 P.2d 340 (Ariz. 1962).
· cites it 8× “A.R.S. § 9-516, subd. A (1956) [13] which was passed subsequent to the Polar Water case (note 12 supra) and requires "a city or town" to acquire a "public utility service" before the former can institute a competing service in the territory already being served by the latter, is…”
Jung v. City of Phoenix, 770 P.2d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 6× “A city or town acquiring the facilities of a public service corporation rendering utility service without the boundaries of such city or town, or which renders utility service without its boundaries, shall not discontinue such service, once established, as long as such city or…”
TDB Tucson Grp., L.L.C. v. City of Tucson, 263 P.3d 669 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 9-516(C). But absent either a statutory or contractual obligation, a municipality has no duty to provide service to nonresidents.”
Flecha Caida Water Co. v. City of Tucson, 420 P.2d 198 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966).
· cites it 6× “” The city asserts, in defense of the pro■ceedings, that it exercised the power of eminent domain under A.R.S. § 9-516 and, having complied with that specific statute, it was not required to comply with the general statute.”
Sende Vista Water Co., Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 617 P.2d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 9-516 provides in part: A. It is declared as the public policy of the state that when adequate public utility service under authority of law is being rendered in an area, within or without the boundaries of a city or town, a competing service and installation shall not…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-516(A) — 4 cases
Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City of Kingman, 922 P.2d 308 (Ariz. 1996).
“Indeed, we note that the legislature may have specifically considered garbage collectors as eligible beneficiaries of § 9-516. Speaking in opposition to the proposed law, Senator Miller said: "I want to point out that, while all of the talk on this Bill has centered around…”
Town of Marana v. Pima Cnty., 281 P.3d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“Finally, in a footnote, the County also claimed that, as set forth in A.R.S. § 9-516 (2008), the *146 Town may not compete with the County’s existing utility service.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-516(B) — 2 cases
City of Surprise v. acc/lake Pleasant, 437 P.3d 865 (Ariz. 2019).
“§ 9-516, nothing in the eminent domain statutes expressly divests the Commission of authority to investigate the nature of the transaction or to protect the public’s access to water before the acquisition. The majority correctly states that the Commission has no jurisdiction…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-516(C) — 5 cases
Jung v. City of Phoenix, 770 P.2d 342 (Ariz. 1989).
“A city or town acquiring the facilities of a public service corporation rendering utility service without the boundaries of such city or town, or which renders utility service without its boundaries, shall not discontinue such service, once established, as long as such city or…”
TDB Tucson Grp., L.L.C. v. City of Tucson, 263 P.3d 669 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“A.R.S. § 9-516(C). But absent either a statutory or contractual obligation, a municipality has no duty to provide service to nonresidents.”
Jung v. City of Phoenix, 770 P.2d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“A city or town acquiring the facilities of a public service corporation rendering utility service without the boundaries of such city or town, or which renders utility service without its boundaries, shall not discontinue such service, once established, as long as such city or…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-516(D) — 1 case
City of Surprise v. acc/lake Pleasant, 437 P.3d 865 (Ariz. 2019).
“§ 9-516, nothing in the eminent domain statutes expressly divests the Commission of authority to investigate the nature of the transaction or to protect the public’s access to water before the acquisition. The majority correctly states that the Commission has no jurisdiction…”
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.