Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission (1989)
green
· 311 citation events
across 9 courts.
Showing the 44 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198920072026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
yellow
John Doe v. Mahoney (2018)
But cf. Mountain States , 160 Ariz. at 357 , n.13 , 773 P.2d at 462 (suggesting the right to privacy under Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 8 may protect right to anonymity and stating citizens have a right to "gain access to an information source" without risking a breach of anonymity).
green
Outdoor Systems, Inc., an Arizona Corporation Milton Lee, Trustee for the Danny O. Lee Trust v. City of Mesa,… (1993)
Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 773 P.2d 455, 459 (Ariz.1989) (Mountain States), they are incorrect in their assertion that the sign codes violate that provision. 45 Article 2, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution provides: "Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right." Like the First Amendment, Arizona's free speech provision allows for reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.
green
Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. City of Mesa (1993)
Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, 773 P.2d 455, 459 (Ariz.1989) (Mountain States), they are incorrect in their assertion that the sign codes violate that provision.
green
CENTER FOR AZ v. AZ SECRETARY OF STATE (2026)
See Mountain States, 160 Ariz. at 358 (“[G]iven Arizona’s constitutional protections, when dealing with regulations that affect speech, the [government] must regulate with narrow specificity so as to affect as little as possible the ability of the sender and receiver to communicate.”); Hicks, 539 U.S. at 118–19 (recognizing overbroad law may deter or chill speech); FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 253–54 (2012) (recognizing vague law as chilling speech).
“[G]iven Arizona’s constitutional protections, when dealing with regulations that affect speech, the [government] must regulate with narrow specificity so as to affect as little as possible the ability of the sender and receiver to communicate.”
green
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix (2019)
See, e.g., Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352 , 361 ¶ 36 n.5 (2012) (stating that article 2, section 6 “is in some respects more protective of free speech rights than the First Amendment”); Stummer, 219 Ariz. at 143 ¶ 17 (“We have also stated that [a]rticle 2, [s]ection 6 has ‘greater scope than the [F]irst [A]mendment.’” (citation omitted)); Mountain States Tel. & Tel, Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 356 (1989) (“[W]e apply here the broader freedom of speech c…
“[W]e apply here the broader freedom of speech clause of the Arizona Constitution.”
green
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix (2019)
See, e.g., Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352 , 361 ¶ 36 n.5 (2012) (stating that article 2, section 6 “is in some respects more protective of free speech rights than the First Amendment”); Stummer, 219 Ariz. at 143 ¶ 17 (“We have also stated that [a]rticle 2, [s]ection 6 has ‘greater scope than the [F]irst [A]mendment.’” (citation omitted)); Mountain States Tel. & Tel, Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 356 (1989) (“[W]e apply here the broader freedom of speech c…
“[W]e apply here the broader freedom of speech clause of the Arizona Constitution.”
green
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State (2004)
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 356 , 773 P.2d 455, 461 (1989), we reverse the order here.
green
State v. Stummer (2008)
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 354-55 , 773 P.2d 455, 459-60 (1989).
green
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II (2015)
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 354 , 773 P.2d 455, 459 (1989) (“jurisprudential considerations require us to decide the case on the narrowest grounds possible”). ¶ 74 In sum, because under the facts and circumstances of this case any reasonable person would conclude there was a “fail-probability that contraband or evidence of a crime w[ould] be found” in the storage unit, Gates, 462 U.S. at 238 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , and because the investigating officers executed the…
“jurisprudential considerations require us to decide the case on the narrowest grounds possible”
green
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson (2002)
Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 160 Ariz. 350, 357 , 773 P.2d 455, 462 (1989).
green
Davenport v. Garcia (1992)
Co. v. Bountiful City, 803 P.2d 1241 (Utah 1990) (looking to federal law only after finding no inverse condemnation under the state constitution); Mountain States Tel. & Tel Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 160 Ariz. 350 , 773 P.2d 455, 461 (1989); In re T.W., 551 So.2d 1186, 1190 (Fla.1989); O'Neill v. Oakgrove Constr., 71 N.Y.2d 521 , 528 N.Y.S.2d 1, 6 , 523 N.E.2d 277, 282 (1988) (Kaye, J., concurring); State v. Jewett, 146 Vt. 221 , 500 A.2d 233, 238 (1985) (federal law cons…
green
State v. Stummer (2007)
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 354-55 , 773 P.2d 455, 459-60 (1989).
green
State of Arizona v. William Mixton (2021)
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 356 (1989).
green
State of Arizona v. William Mixton (2021)
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 356 (1989).
green
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II (2015)
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 354 , 773 P.2d 455, 459 (1989) (“jurisprudential considerations require us to decide the case on the narrowest grounds possible”). ¶74 In sum, because under the facts and circumstances of this case any reasonable person would conclude there was a “fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime w[ould] be found” in the storage unit, Gates, 462 U.S. at 238 , and because the investigating officers executed the search in good-fa…
“jurisprudential considerations require us to decide the case on the narrowest grounds possible”
green
in Re George Green and Garlan Green (2015)
Ariz. 350, 773 P.2d 455, 461 (1989); In re T.W., 551 Matarese, Other Voices: The Role of Justices Durham, So.2d 1186, 1190 (Fla.1989); O'Neill v. Oakgrove Kaye and Abrahamson in Shaping the "New Judicial Constr., 71 N.Y.2d 521 , 528 N.Y.S.2d 1, 6 , 523 N.E.2d Federalism", 2 Emerging Issues in St.
green
Grammatico v. Industrial Commission (2004)
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 160 Ariz. 350, 358 , 773 P.2d 455, 463 (1989)). ¶ 32 Here, the legislature can constitutionally give a reasonable construction to the term "necessary risk" that does not include conduct in the workplace that is affected by the use of illegal drugs.
Co. v. Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 360-61 , 773 P.2d 455, 465-66 (1989), the Fee Cross-Appellants urge that the superior court was required to award them the fees and expenses incurred during both the trial and administrative proceedings. ¶ 56 The Commission responds that Mountain States is no longer controlling and that § 12-348(A)(2) no longer mandates an award of fees incurred during the administrative hearing.
green
Empress Adult Video v. City of Tucson (2002)
Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ar iz. 350, 357, 773 P.2d 455, 462 (1989).
green
Martin v. Reinstein (1999)
Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 160 Ariz. 350, 354-55 , 773 P.2d 455, 459-60 (1989); Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court, 101 Ariz. 257 , 418 P.2d 594 (1966).
green
State v. Musser (1998)
Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 354-55, 773 P.2d 455, 459-60 (1989).
green
MVC Construction, Inc. v. Treadway (1995)
Co. v. Corporation Commission, 160 Ariz. 350, 361 , 773 P.2d 455, 466 (1989), indicate that the legislature intended to make such an award mandatory.
green
State v. Benson (1993)
Co. v. Arizona Corporation Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 356 , 773 P.2d 455, 461 (1989) (“[Wjhenever a right that the Arizona Constitution guarantees is in question: we first consult our constitution.”).
“[Wjhenever a right that the Arizona Constitution guarantees is in question: we first consult our constitution.”
green
Ex Parte Tucci (1993)
Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 160 Ariz. 350 , 773 P.2d 455, 459 (1989); In re Hearings Concerning Canon 35, 132 Colo. 591 , 296 P.2d 465, 466-67 (1956); O'Neill v. Oakgrove Constr, Inc., 71 N.Y.2d 521 , 528 N.Y.S.2d 1 , 523 N.E.2d 277 , 280 n. 3 (1988); see also State v. Coe, 101 Wash.2d 364 , 679 P.2d 353, 359-60 (1984). .
Co. v. Corporation Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 361 , 773 P.2d 455, 466 (1989) (“Given this legislative history, we conclude that by the use of the words ‘shall award fees’ ..., instead of the phrase ‘may award fees’ used in the federal analog, the legislature intended to make an award mandatory”).
“Given this legislative history, we conclude that by the use of the words ‘shall award fees’ ..., instead of the phrase ‘may award fees’ used in the federal analog, the legislature intended to make an award mandatory”
green
OKLAHOMA CALL FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE v. DRUMMOND (2023)
Comm , 160 Ariz. 350, 358 , 773 P.2d 455, 463 (1989); Deer Valley Unified School Dist .
green
OKLAHOMA CALL FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE v. DRUMMOND (2023)
Comm , 160 Ariz. 350, 358 , 773 P.2d 455, 463 (1989); Deer Valley Unified School Dist .
green
OKLAHOMA CALL FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE v. DRUMMOND (2023)
Comm , 160 Ariz. 350, 358 , 773 P.2d 455, 463 (1989); Deer Valley Unified School Dist .
green
Sign Here v. Chavez (2017)
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 354 (1989).
green
Bozrah v. aroc/peterson (2015)
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 354 (1989) (“fundamental and long-standing principle of judicial restraint requires that courts avoid reaching constitutional questions in advance of the necessity of deciding them” (quoting Lyng v. Nw.
“fundamental and long-standing principle of judicial restraint requires that courts avoid reaching constitutional questions in advance of the necessity of deciding them” (quoting Lyng v. Nw. Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439, 446 (1988))
green
City of Scottsdale v. State (2015)
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 354 , 773 P.2d 455, 459 (1989) (noting that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides only a protection against government action that restricts speech and does not prevent a state from granting to its citizens greater protections than are required under the federal constitution). ¶ 22 Finally, although the City argues that the state statute prevents reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on sign walkers…
noting that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides only a protection against government action that restricts speech and does not prevent a state from granting to its citizens greater protections than are required under the federal constitution
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 354 , 773 P.2d 455, 459 (1989)), CJF provides no argument that our analysis of the issues presented here under the Arizona Constitution should differ from that used by courts under the United States Constitution. 16 .
green
Coleman v. City of Mesa (2011)
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 354-55 , 773 P.2d 455, 459-60 (1989), neither party contends the state provision defines protected speech differently than the First Amendment.
green
Salib v. City of Mesa (2006)
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 358 , 773 P.2d 455, 463 (1989).
Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 160 Ariz. 350, 354 , 773 P.2d 455, 459 (1989), no party suggests that we apply a different test to decide whether the Cooperatives' rights to free commercial speech are impinged under the state constitution. [24] The court awarded fees to AEPCO, Duncan, and Graham in the amount of $55,230.90, to Trico in the amount of $61,624.33, and to Sulphur Springs in the amount of $18,795.67.
green
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Gravano (2002)
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 160 Ariz. 350, 354 , 773 P.2d 455, 459 (1989).
green
State v. Evenson (2001)
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 354 , 773 P.2d 455, 459 (1989).
green
Arizona Libertarian Party v. Schmeral (2001)
Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 360 , 773 P.2d 455, 465 (1989); Hampton v. Glendale Union High School Dist., 172 Ariz. 431, 434 , 837 P.2d 1166, 1169 (App.1992), if the context and purpose of the legislation indicate that the term should be so construed.
green
Renalwest L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue (1997)
The legislature also amended A.R.S. section 12-348(B), providing exceptions to awards in subsection A. Mountain States Tel. v. Corporation Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 361 , 773 P.2d 455, 466 (1989) (Feldman, J., supplemental opinion).
Feldman, J., supplemental opinion
green
State v. Baldwin (1996)
Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 354-55 , 773 P.2d 455, 459-60 (1989).
green
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Tolleson (1989)
Our supreme court has said that Arizona’s free speech provision is broader than the First Amendment, and has directed that, "whenever a right that the Arizona Constitution guarantees is in question[,] we first consult our constitution.” Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 356 , 773 P.2d 455, 461 (1989).
green
Mishler v. MAC Systems, Inc. (2002)
See Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corporation Commission, 160 Ariz. 350 , 773 P.2d 455, 461 (1989).
green
In Re Advisory Opinion to the Governor (2004)
See Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corporation Commission, 160 Ariz. 350 , 773 P.2d 455, 458 (1989) (noting, in an opinion on the regulation of telephone service providers, that “[telephone service] providers operate [telephone] services, and the [Arizona Corporation] Commission’s order regulates that service.”); People v. Queen, 190 Cal.App.3d 826 , 235 Cal.Rptr. 601, 602 (1987) (commenting that the Harbors and Navigation Code gives port districts the …
noting, in an opinion on the regulation of telephone service providers, that “[telephone service] providers operate [telephone] services, and the [Arizona Corporation] Commission’s order regulates that service.”
green
Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins (1991)
See United States Supreme Court opinions cited in KPNX Broadcasting and the recent case of United States Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 , 109 S.Ct. 1468 , 103 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989); see also Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corporation Commission, 160 Ariz. 350 , 773 P.2d 455 (1989) and cases cited therein.