Legal Opinion
Babe Investment v. Arizona Corp. Commission
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided May 1, 1997No. 1 CA-CV 95-0499, 1 CA-CV 96-0466PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
TOCI, Judge.
The Arizona Corporation Commission (“Commission”) dismissed a complaint filed by Babe Investments (“Babe”) and Aero Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc. (“Aero”) against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company (“Santa Fe”). The complaint alleged that Santa Fe violated Ariz. Rev.Stat. Ann. (“A.R.S.”) section 40-285 by removing a switch and section of railroad track (“siding”) without first obtaining Commission approval. 1 The Commission found no violation of the statute and further found that A.R.S. section 40-326 did not require Santa Fe to reinstall the siding. Babe…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State v. TarangoArizona Supreme Court · 1996
- State v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
- Sanders v. NovickCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1986
- Exodyne Properties, Inc. v. City of PhoenixCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1990
- Tonto Creek Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1993
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- City of Surprise v. acc/lake PleasantArizona Supreme Court · 2019
- Amparano v. Asarco, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Arizona Corp. CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2000
- Grand Canyon Trust v. Arizona Corp. CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
- Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.